the Son to be a distinct Substantial Person this Dispute we hear nothing of but the only Dispute was concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and that proves that they did own the Son to be a Substantial Person for were he not in a true proper sense a Person and a Substantial Person he could not be Consubstantial with the Father Nay St Austin expresly tells us That Arius agreed with the Catholicks against the Sabellians in making the Son a distinct Person from the Father and if so the Catholicks taught That the Son was as distinct a Person as Arius did though not a Separate and Created Person as he did Now when Arius would have reduced Christ into the number of Creatures though he made him the first and most excellent Creature created before the World and God's Minister in making the World as like to God as a Creature can possibly be but not of the same Nature with God the Catholick Church would not bear this but in a most Venerable Synod collected from most parts of the Christian World condemn this as contrary to the Faith always received and owned in their several Churches Thus far at least the Tradition of the Church was Sacred and Venerable and the concurrent Testimony of all these several Churches was a more certain Proof of the Apostolick Faith than all the Wit and Subtilty of Arius For Wit may patronize New Errors but cannot prove That to be the Ancient Apostolick Faith which the Church had never received from the Apostles nor ever heard of before This I take to be a very sensible Proof what the Faith of the Christian Church was from the Times of the Apostles till the Council of Nice and consequently what that Faith was which the Church received from the Apostles And this abundantly satisfies me That whatever loose Expressions we may meet with in some of the Fathers before the Arian Controversy was started and managed with great Art and Subtilty though I know of none but what are capable of a very Orthodox Sense it is certain that they were not Arians nor intended any such thing in what they said For had Arianism been the Traditionary Faith of the Church it must have been known to be so and then how came the Church to be so strangely alarm'd at the first news of it Or what shall we think of those Venerable Fathers and Confessors in that Great Council who either did not know the Faith of the Church or did so horribly prevaricate in the Condemnation of Arius when they had no other apparent Interest or Temptation to do so but a Warm and Hearty Zeal for the Truly Ancient and Apostolick Faith It is certain Arius never pretended Catholick Tradition for his Opinion but undertook to reform the Catholick Faith by the Principles of Philosophy and to reconcile it to Scripture by new-coin'd Interpretations though in this he fail'd and found the Great Athanasius an over-match for him It is not with Faith as it is with Arts and Sciences of Human Invention which may be improved in every Age by greater Wits or new Observations but Faith depends upon Revelation not Invention and we can no more make a New Catholick Faith by the power of Wit and Reason than we can write a True History of what the Apostles did and taught out of our own Invention without the Authority of any Ancient Records Men may do such things if they please but one will be Heresy and the other a Romance And yet this is the bold and brave Attempt of Secinus and his Disciples They are so modest indeed as not to pretend Antiquity to be on their side they can find no other Antiquity for themselves but in Cerinthus and Ebion who separated from the Catholick Church and were rejected by them and it does not seem very modest to set up such men as these against the Universal Consent of the first and purest Ages of the Church The Socinians who know very well what the Charge of Novelty signifies in matters of Religion That a New Faith is but another Name for New Heresies Though they reject the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Catholick Tradition of the Faith from the Apostolick Age yet they appeal to Scripture and Natural Sentiments as the greatest and best Antiquity in opposition to Apostolick Tradition This is our Considerer's way which he prefers before a Traditionary Faith and by the same reason the Socinians may oppose it to a Traditionary Faith And if we must always expound Scripture by our Natural Sentiments this Author had best consider whether he can prove a Trinity by Natural Reason or fairly reconcile the Natural Notion of One God with the Catholick Faith of the Trinity or of Three each of whom is True and Pâ—rfect God from the mere Principles of Natural Reason for if he can't he must not in his way find a Trinity in Scripture But of this more hereafter 3. Let us now in opposition to this pretence consider of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture The Holy Scripture at least in pretence is allowed on all hands to be a Compleat and Authentick Rule of Faith but the question is since men differ so much in expounding Scripture What is the safest Rule to expound Scripture by whether the Traditionary Faith of the Church or our Natural Sentiments or Natural Reason I do not mean that we must learn the Critical Sense of every Text from Catholick Tradition for we have not in all points such a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture though even in this respect we shall find that the Catholick Fathers have unanimously agreed in the Interpretation of the most material Texts relating to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. They sometimes indeed alledge such Texts especially out of the Old Testament as our Modern Criticks will not allow to be proper and apposite but even this shews what their Faith was and yet these very Expositions which have been so anciently and unanimously received though they may appear at this distance of time too forc'd and mystical have too Sacred and Venerable an Authority to be wantonly rejected We may learn from Christ and his Apostles what mysterious and hidden Senses were contain'd in the Writings of the Old Testament such as it is very probable we should never have found in them had not Christ and his Apostles explained their meaning And the nearer any Writers were to the Apostolick Age the more they were addicted to these Mystical Interpretations which is a good reason to believe that they learnt it from the Apostles themselves But this is not what I now intend my present Argument reaches no farther than this That if we can learn what the Doctrine of the Catholick Church concerning the Holy Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ has always been Then 1. It is very reasonable to conclude That they
received this Doctrine from the Apostles it being the Faith of those Churches which were planted by the Apostles received their Faith from them and always lived in Communion with them 2. This makes it reasonable to believe that this very Faith is contained in the Writings of the New Testament for I suppose no man questions but that the Apostles taught the same Faith by Writing which they did by Preaching and then this is a Demonstration against all such Interpretations of Scripture as contradict the Catholick Faith whatever fine Colours Wit and Criticism may give them Nay 3. It is a certain Proof That these Primitive Christians who received these Inspired Writings from the Apostles which now make up the Canon of the New Testament did believe that the same Faith which the Apostles and Apostolical men had taught them by Word of Mouth was contained in their Writings for they could not possibly have believed both what the Apostles taught and what they writ if their Preaching and Writings had contradicted each other We know what the Faith of the Primitive Church was and we know they received these Apostolical Writings with the profoundest Veneration as an Inspired Rule of Faith and had we no other presumption of it but this we might safely conclude That they found the same Faith in these Writings which the Apostles had before taught them by Word of Mouth But besides this we find that all the Catholick Writers appeal to the Scriptures and prove their Faith from them and the Authority of such men who were so near the Fountain of Apostolick Tradition must be very Venerable 4. I shall only add this That since we know what the Catholick Faith was and how the Catholick Fathers expounded Scripture if the Words of Scripture will naturally and easily admit that Sense much more if they will not admit any other Sense without great force and violence let any man judge which is most safe and reasonable to expound Scripture as the Catholick Faith and Catholick Fathers expound it and as the Scripture most easily and naturally expounds it self or to force New Senses and Old Heresies upon Scripture which the Catholick Church has always rejected and condemned This I hope may satisfy our Considerer that he did very ill in rejecting a Traditionary Faith and venturing to expound Scripture by his Natural Sentiments which is a very Unsafe Rule in Matters of Pure Revelation of which mere Natural Reason is no competent Judge SECT III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity THus far I fear our Considerer has been a little unfortunate or if it do not prove a Misfortune to him in forming his Notion of a Trinity his Luck is better than his Choice Let us proceed to his next Enquiry What is sufficient for Christians to believe concerning the Trinity or which is all one in this case what is necessary to be believed What the meaning of this Question is I can't well tell nor why he makes sufficient and necessary all one for at least they are not always so That is sufficient which is enough for any man to believe that is strictly necessary which every man must believe But let him take his own way he quits the Term sufficient and enquires what is necessary to be believed whereas in many cases that which is absolutely necessary for all may not be sufficient for some I should much rather have enquired how much may be known concerning this Glorious Mystery than how little will serve the turn which argues no great Zeal for it Well What is necessary to be believed concerning the Trinity He answers Nothing but 1. What 's possible to be believed And 2. What 's plainly revealed Here we begin to see what the effect is of consulting nothing but Scripture and Natural Sentiments I hope he meant honestly in this but if he did he expressed himself very incautiously for these two Conditions are very ill put together when applied to matters of Revelation Plainly revealed had been enough in all reason unless he would insinuate that what is plainly revealed may be impossible to be believed and that how plain soever the Revelation be men must judge of the possibility of the thing by their own Natural Sentiments before they are bound to believe it which makes Natural Reason not Scripture the final Judge of Controversies But we must follow him where he leads us and thus he divides his whole Work 1. To consider how far it is possible to believe a Trinity 2. What the Scripture requires us to believe in this matter As for the first he tells us There are two requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing 1. That we know the Terms of what we are to assent to 2. That it imply no Contradiction to our former Knowledge Such Knowledge I mean as is accompanied with Certainty and Evidence This in some sense may be true but as it is thus loosely and generally expressed it is very like the Socinian Cant and Sophistry By knowing the Terms he means having distinct Natural Ideas of what is signified by such Terms as he himself explains it I can believe it no farther than the Terms of which it is made up are known and understood and the Ideas signified by them consistent So that all Divine Mysteries must be examined by our Natural Ideas and what we have no Natural Ideas of we cannot we must not believe And this once for all condemns all Supernatural Faith or the belief of Supernatural Objects though never so plainly revealed for we have no Natural Ideas of Supernatural Objects And though Revelation may furnish us from the Resemblances and Analogies in Nature with some Artificial Ideas this will not serve the turn for though they know what such Terms signify when applied to Natural they know not what they signify when applied to Supernatural Objects nor have they any Ideas to answer them As for Instance We know what Father and Son signify when applied to Men but when we say God is not only Eternal himself but an Eternal Father who begot an Eternal Son these Terms of Father and Son begetting and being begotten must signify quite otherwise than they do among men something which we have no Idea of and therefore say the Socinians All this is unintelligible and impossible to be believed unless we can believe without understanding the Terms This Considerer asserts the Premises he had best consider again how he will avoid the Conclusion Another Socinian Topick is Contradiction and this our Considerer makes another requisite to the possibility of believing That the thing do not imply a Contradiction to our former knowledge that is to any Natural Ideas And here he learnedly disputes against believing Contradictions and that it is not consistent with the Wisdom Iustice and Goodness of God to require us to believe Contradictions But if instead of all this he had only said That God cannot reveal such plain and evident
must not think that God begets a Son as men do by corporeal passions or division of his substance or that he begets a Son without himself or separate from himself or that because a Creature-father is always older than his Son therefore God can't beget a Son coâ—ternal with himself for all these Circumstances do not belong to the essential Notion of a Father but of a Creature-father But then it is essential to the Notion both of Father and Son that the Father communicates his own Nature to the Son and that the Son receives his Nature and Being from his Father that Father and Son do truly and really subsist by themselves though they may be and when we speak of God the Father and his Son are inseparably united to each other that the Son with respect to his Nature is perfectly the same that his Father is the son of a man as true and perfect Man as his Father is and therefore the Son of God as true and perfect God By these Arguments the Catholick Fathers confuted both the Sabellians who made Father Son and Holy Ghost but Three Names and the Arians who denied the Consubstantiality of the Son or that he had the same Nature with his Father For both these Heresies destroy'd the essential Notion and Idea of Father and Son which includes in it both a real distinction and sameness of Nature that they are as really Two but infinitely more one and the same than any other Father and Son in Nature are Now I cannot see but that as these Names and Characters are better understood and liable to less dispute so they convey to our Minds a more distinct conception of God the Father and his Eternal Son than any other artificial Terms Were there no Controversy about Nature Essence Person Substance Hypostasis yet they immediately convey no Idea of God the Father and his Eternal Son to my mind much less give me a more distinct Conception than these Terms Father and Son do For they neither acquaint me what God is nor what Father and Son is and as the Schools themselves assert cannot be Univocally or in the same sense spoken of Creatures and of God who is Super-Essential above all Praedicaments and Terms of Art that is Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Person do not and cannot signify the same thing when spoken of God as when applied to Creatures And this has occasioned all those Disputes concerning the Use and Signification of these words when applied to God which indeed is no reason for wholly discarding these Terms which the Perverseness and Importunity of Hereticks has forced the Church to use and which have now been so long used that the Ecclesiastical Sense of these Words is very well known to Learned men if they would be contented to use them in that Received Ecclesiastical Sense in which the Catholick Fathers have always used them but yet it is a reason not to clog the Faith of ordinary Christians with them who are not skilled in Metaphysical and Abstracted Notions and it is a reason to reduce the Controversy as much as possibly we can to Scripture Terms when these Artificial and Metaphysical Terms divide even the Professors of the Catholick Faith and give too just occasion to the vain Boasts and Triumphs of Hereticks To represent this matter plainly I observe That all all those Unscriptural Terms which the Catholick Fathers made use of for the Explication of this Adorable Mystery were intended for no other purpose but to give us some distinct Ideas and Conceptions of what the Scripture teaches concerning the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost by using such Terms as signify something in Creatures which bears some though a very imperfect anology and resemblance to what we are to conceive of God And therefore the Fathers justifie the use of such words by shewing That all they mean by them is contained in Scripture and reject any Words and any such Sense of Artificial Words as cannot be justified by Scripture Which by the way is a more infallible Rule than all Metaphysical Subtleties to find out in what sense the Fathers used such Words by observing to what Scripture-Notions they apply them and how they justifie their use from Scripture when they are Disputed If this be the truth of the Case as it certainly is then the Catholick Faith does not depend upon the use of these Terms for it was before them for they were intended only to explain and illustrate the Catholick Faith and to comprise Scripture-Notions in Terms of Art which must be acknowledged to be of great use and was by experience found to be so in the Disputes with ancient Hereticks while the Fathers agreed in the sense of these Terms But when these Terms themselves are become the great matter of Dispute and men who as is to be hoped agree in the Catholick Faith cannot agree about the Propriety and Signification of such Terms nor how they are to be applied and used whether in the singular or plural Number whether substantively or adjectively in recto or obliquo and our Adversaries abuse such Disputes to the Reproach of the Catholick Faith as a perplex'd uncertain contradictious Riddle and Mystery which men can know nothing of or can never agree in it becomes absolutely necessary at present to take this Controversy out of Terms of Art and to let our Adversaries see That our Controversy with them is not concerned in these Disputes That it is not about the Signification and Use of such words as Essence Nature Substance Person c. but Whether the Supreme Eternal Self-originated Father have not an Eternal Son eternally begotten of himself and an Eternal Spirit the Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally proceeding from them And whether this Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit are not True and Perfect God In this all sincere Trinitarians do heartily agree with each other and are ready to join issue upon this State of the Controversy with all their Adversaries of what denomination soever And if we can prove from Scripture That God has an Eternal Son begotten of himself and that this Eternal Son is True and Perfect God as the Father is and that the Father and Son have an Eternal Spirit who is True and Perfect God as Father and Son is I hope this is a sufficient Confutation of Socinianism and yet all this may be proved without concerning our selves in any Metaphysical Disputes And therefore such Disputes as these though they give opportunity to our Adversaries to make some Flourishes and to cast Mists before peoples eyes are not of that moment as they would represent them they neither prove Socinianism to be true nor the Catholick Faith of the Trinity to be false or uncertain I do not intend at present to dispute this Point with the Socinians Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit for there is no dispute about the Father be not each of them True and Perfect God This has been proved
be but One God but yet requires us to believe his Eternal Son to be true and perfect God and his Eternal Spirit to be true and perfect God it is certain that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is very reconcilable with the Unity of God For as far as Revelation must decide this Dispute we are as much obliged to believe That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God as we are to believe That there is but One God Those who will not acquiesce in this must appeal from Scripture to Natural Reason which is a very absurd and impudent Appeal for the plain sense of it is this That they will believe their own Reason before the Scriptures in matters relating to the Divine Nature and Unity which all wise men acknowledge to be so much above human comprehension That is That they know the Unity of God better than God himself does or which is the same thing That they will never believe any Revelation to come from God or any thing how express soever the words are to be the meaning of the Revelation any farther than their own Reason approves it Of which more elsewhere And yet I dare appeal to any man of a free and unbiass'd Reason in this Cause What is that Natural Notion we have of One God Is it any thing more than that there is and can be but One Eternal Self-originated Being who is the Principle or Cause of all other Beings And does not the Scripture do not all Trinitarians with the whole Catholick Church own this Do not all the Christian Creeds teach us to profess our Faith in One God the Father from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their Godhead Thus far then Scripture and Reason and the Catholick Faith agree Does Reason then deny that God can beget of himself an Eternal Son his own perfect Image and Likeness If it does then indeed Scripture and Reason contradict each other But I believe these men will not pretend to prove from Reason That God could not beget an Eternal Son and if this cannot be proved by Reason as I am certain it never can then Reason does not contradict Scripture which teaches us that God has an only begotten Son And if God have an only begotten Son Reason will teach us that the Son of God must be True and Perfect God and yet not another God because he has one and the same Nature with his Father This is all that any Christian need to believe concerning this matter and all this every Christian may understand and all this every one who sincerely believes the Faith of the Holy Trinity does and must agree in Those who do not I will at any time undertake to prove to be secret Hereticks and Enemies to the Christian Faith and as for those who do I will never dispute with them about some Terms of Art and the Propriety of Words in a matter which is so much above all words and forms of speech And here I leave this matter upon a sure Bottom and here we are ready to join Issue with our Socinian Adversaries Our only Controversy as to the Doctrine of the Trinity with them is Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit each of them be True and Perfect God If we can prove this which has been the Faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages we need dispute no other matters with them nor can any Disputes among our selves give any Support to their Cause A Dispute about Words may look like a difference in Faith when both contending Parties may mean the same thing as those must do who sincerely own and believe That the Son is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost is True and Perfect God and that neither of them are the Father nor each other And therefore those different Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity which the Socinians of late have so much triumphed in and made more and greater than really they are and more sensless too by their false Representations can do them no real service among Wise Men tho it may help to amuse the Ignorant If any men have subtilly distinguished away the Catholick Faith they may take them to themselves and increase their Party by them But if this were the Case as I hope it is not it is no Objection against the Catholick Faith that some men openly oppose it and others at least in some mens opinions do secretly undermine it There is reason to guard the Christian Faith against all inconvenient or dangerous Explications which seem to approach near Heresy if this be done with due Christian Temper and Moderation but I hope the Disputes of the Trinitarians are not so irreconcilable but that they will all unite against a Pestilent and Insolent Heresy which now promises it self glorious Successes only from their private Quarrels CHAP. II. An Examination of Some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy BEfore I put an end to this Discourse it will contribute very much to the better understanding of what I have said and give a clearer Notion of the Use of it to apply these Principles to the Examination of a late Treatise entituled Some Considerations concerning the Trinity The Author I know not he writes with Temper and though he takes the liberty to find fault he does it Civilly and therefore he ought to meet with Civil Usage and so he shall from me as far as the bare Censure of his Principles will admit I was I confess startled at the first entrance to find him own the Vncertainty of our Faith in these Points concerning the Trinity for if after the most perfect Revelation of the Gospel that we must ever expect and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for above Sixteen Hundred years this Faith is still uncertain it is time to leave off all Enquiries about it As for the many absurd and blasphemous Expositions that have been made of this Doctrine if by them he means the Ancient Heresies which infested the Church they are so far from rendring our Faith uncertain that as I shall shew him anon the very Condemnation of those Heresies by the Catholick Church gives us a more certain account what the true Catholick Faith was I agree with him that the warm and indiscreet Management of contrary Parties has been to the Prejudice of Religion among unthinking people who hence conclude the uncertainty of our Faith and it concerns good men to remove this Prejudice by distinguishing the Catholick Faith from the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Words and the Catholick Sense of them and I hope I have made it appear this may be done and then the Faith is secure notwithstanding these Disputes and as for any other Offence or Scandal let those look to it who either give or take it This Considerer dislikes all the Ways and Methods which have hitherto been taken to compose these Disputes 1. He
had already demonstrated this That One God signifies One single Person he only proves That the Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and therefore That these Terms must all be so understood as to include the same God the One single Divine Person in their Signification The first I think he proves well enough That these Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and this vindicates him from being a Socinian But when he applies all these Titles and Characters to One and the same God that is in his sense to One and the same single Person this proves him to be a Sabellian for this was the Doctrine of Noetus and Sabellius That these different Titles and Characters did belong but to One single Person who is God He proves That these Titles and Characters Father Son and Holy Ghost do signify God from the forms of Baptism Salutation and Blessing Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all From whence as he adds I infer That all these terms Father Son and Holy Ghost signify God because I cannot possibly conceive 't is agreeable to the nature of the Christian Religion that the Ministers of it should teach baptize or bless the people in any other name but God's I like this Argument very well but if it proves any thing it proves more than he would have it That Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself true and perfect God and not all Three One single Person for it seems altogether as absurd to teach baptize or bless in Three Names and Titles when there is but One single Person signified by those Three Names And therefore his Inference is not very plain That if any One of these Terms signify God they must all Three signify God and if all Three signify God they must all Three signify One and the same God for God is One. This is very artificial but not plain The consequence is plain That if Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Names of God they must all signify One God by the Unity and sameness of Nature because there is but One God but not by the Vnity of Person because the Scripture mentions Three each of whom is God Which proves That God is One in Nature but Three in Persons as the Catholick Church has always believed As for what he adds That the One Supreme God the Lord and Maker of all things is here meant by the word Father is a thing not questioned and therefore Sâ—n and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the same Divine Nature may in some sense be allowed if he will distinguish between Nature and Person but according to the sense of Scripture and the belief of the Catholick Church Father Son and Hâ—ly Ghost are the names of Three Real Distinct Divine Persons not of One Divine Nature in the sense of One Persâ—n But though we allow this with the Catholick Church That the Father is the One Supreme God we have no reason to allow this to the Considerer who will not allow Father Son or Holy Ghost to be Names of Divine Persons or to be Names or Relations of the Divine Nature considered as the Divine Nature for he says they are extrinsecal that is â—xtra-essential Ideas Titles Characters Respects Relations and therefore Father according to this Hypothesis is not the essential Name of the One Supreme God but given to him for some extrinsical and extra-essential reasons is his Name not by Nature but by Institution and then must be proved to be his Name which the mere form of Baptism cannot do for the Name God is not expressed in it much less does it prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and the same God or One single Person It is evident indeed from other Texts That Father is the Name of God but then it is the Name of God the Father and the Son is the Son of God and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of God the Spirit of the Father and of the Son and this does prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Divinity the same One Divine Nature as the very Names and Relations of Father and Son and Spirit prove But surely this does not prove That God the Father and his Son are the same One single Person as well as One God for Father and Son all the world over signify Two distinct Persons for no One Person can be Father and Son to himself nor can the Eternal subsisting Spirit of God be the same Person with that God whose Spirit he is Unless he allows that Father in the form of Baptism is the Name of a Person he can prove nothing from it and if Father be the Name of a Person Son and Holy Ghâ—st must be the Names of Persons also and then the Names and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove That they are not One single Person but Three Persons Thus he proves the Son to be God from that Religious Worship which is paid to him which does indeed prove him to be God but not the same One Person with the Father Our Considerer is much mistaken if he thinks it sufficient to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Titles and Characters of the same One single Person who is the One God if he can prove that each of these Names signify One who is God And the truth is if these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost do not signify Persons they cannot signify God for then they are not Names of Nature but something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and therefore they may be the external Denominations of him who is God but not the Names of God considered as God and therefore cannot signify God because they do not signify the Divine Nature in the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost but something extrinsical and accessory that is something which is not essential and therefore which the Divine Nature might be without I hope the Considerer did not think of this Consequence That it is possible that God might neither have been Father Son nor Holy Ghost which yet must be allowed possible if these be mere extrinsecal and accessory Titles and Characters Nay this must be allowed unless we will grant that these Names signify Three Real Subsisting Intelligent Coeternal Persons in the Vnity of the same Godhead But these Three Persons do somewhat puzzle him That God should be called Father Son and Holy Ghost is as easily to be believed as that he should be called Adonai Elohim and Jehovah That the same thing should be signified and expressed by several Names is no such incredible Mystery Which still shews us what it is he believes and would prove in all this That
that he was of the Father not as a part of the Father or of his Substance and when the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father they did not understand this after the manner of Bodies by division abscission or any change of the Father's Substance but the only meaning is That the Son has nothing like a created Nature but is in every respect perfectly like his Father as not being of any other Substance or Nature but of the Father Athanasius gives us a very particular account what it was that forced the Nicene Fathers to add those two words to their Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Son is of the Substance of the Father and Consubstantial or of One Substance with the Father which was to cut off all Evasions and Subterfuges from the Arian Hereticks and to force them to confess the Truth or to confess their Heresy which they endeavoured to palliate and conceal under ambiguous words When the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son is of the Father the Arians were contented to allow this but meant no more by it but that the Son is of the Father as all other Creatures are of God and therefore they added That the Son is of the Substance of God to distinguish him from all Creatures and this is the true interpretation of that Phrase That the Son is of the Substance of the Father that he is no Creature Thus when the Fathers taught That the Word was the true Power and Image of the Father in all things and invariably like the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Arians owned this also in a qualified sense because Creatures are said to be the Power the Image the Likeness of God and therefore they were forced to express the sense of Scripture and what sense they understood the Scripture in concerning the Son's being the Likeness and Image of God by adding that the Son is Consubstantial or of One Substance with the Father to declare that the Son is not so of the Father as meerly to be like him but to be the very same in likeness and similitude to the Father and to be inseparably united to his Father's Substance and that he and the Father are One as he himself hath said The Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word like the light and its splendor and this the word Homocusios signifies and was used by the Council to this very end to distinguish and separate the Word from all created Nature as appears from the Anathema they immediately denounce against those who said That the Son of God was produced out of nothing was a Creature of a mutable Nature the Workmanship of God or of any other Substance but the Substance of the Father And therefore he adds That those that dislike these words ought to consider the sense in which the Synod uses them and to anathematize what the Synod anathematizes and then if they can let them quarrel with the words though he is very confident that no man who owns the sense of the Council and understands the words in their sense can dislike the words From whence it appears that Athanasius would have allowed those for Orthodox Christians as I observed before St. Hilary did who should confess the Eternal Generation of the Son that there was no time before he was and that he had no beginning of Being that he is no Creature nor of any other Substance but only of the Father and that he always was inseparably united to him and one with him though they should have boggled at those words That the Son is of the Substance of the Father and consubstantial with him But the true reason why the Nicene Fathers did so earnestly contend for these words of the Substance of the Father and Consubstantial was because they found by experience that no other words would hold the Arian Hereticks who concealed their Poyson under any other form of words though in appearance very Orthodox as the Catholick Bishops found to their cost in the Council of Ariminum and upon several other occasions which is the account the Synod of Paris gives the Eastern Bishops of this matter But though they desired that all would agree in the use of this word as most expressive of the true Catholick Faith yet they never rejected the Communion of any Bishops merely upon this account while they prosessed the true Catholick Faith which the Nicene Council intended to signify by this word and condemned those Arian Blasphemies which they intended to condemn by it Before this Council had taken the Homoousion into their Creed and made it the Test of the Catholick Faith Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria in his Book against the Sabellians had let drop some Expressions for which he was charged with denying the Homoousion and accused for it to his Name-sake Dionysius then Bâ—shop of Rome which occasioned his Apology to the Roman Bishop which Athanasius gives us an account of He owns That he did say that the word Homoousion was not to be found in Scripture yet what he taught of Christ did plainly signify what is meant by the Homoousion that he is no Creature but homogeneous or of the same Nature with his Father which he explained by Human Births which are manifestly of the same kind there being no difference of Nature between Parents and Children who differ only in this That Parents are not their own Children whereby he signified that God the Father and God the Son had but one and the same Nature though the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father The same he says he represented by other similitudes of Homogeneous Productions as a Root and its Branches the Fountain and Rivers which are not the same with each other but have the same Nature These are true Catholick Representations of the Homoousion and this Dionysius thought a sufficient Justification of his Faith and Athanasius thought so too without using that term especially if we add what he discourses more at large de Sent. Dionysii contra Arianos I shall only observe farther That the Learned Dr. Bull takes this very way to prove that the Ante Nicene Fathers did own the Faith of the Homoousion or that the Son is consubstantial to the Father though we seldom meet with the word it self in their Writings because they teach the same things which the Nicene Fathers intended by that word As 1. When they affirm the Son of God is not only of the Father but that he proceeds from and is begotten of the Father 2. That the Son is the True Genuine Proper Natural Son of God 3. When they explain the Generation of the Son by the Root and its Branches the Sun and its Rays the Fountain and River which are of the same Nature and therefore represent the Father and Son to be of the same Substance 4. When they except the Son of God out of
distinguished nor separated but is perfectly One Same Undivided Essence and therefore Vna Substantia though not Vnus Subsistens One Substance though not One but Three that subsist What I have thus briefly represented I hope I have proved in the First Chapter from the Authority of Scripture and Reason founded on Scripture And from what I have already discoursed of the Doctrine of the Fathers it may appear to careful and intelligent Readers who use such Application as this Argument deserves and requires that this is their Unanimous Sense also But yet as far as it is possible to clear this Matter more fully and vindicate the Fathers and Schools from those Obscurities Inconsistences and Contradictions which are generally charged on them in so concerning an Article I shall reassume this Matter and particularly shew 1. That what they call a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 2. That this Divine Essence and Substance as constituting these Divine Persons is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another and therefore that this Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is no more numerically One than their Persons are One. 3. What difference they made between Nature and Essence and Hypostasis and Person 4. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion deliver the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to 1. As for the first That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence it is and must be in some sense acknowledged by all who profess the Faith of a Real Trinity for there cannot be a Real Trinity of Divine Persons if each Person be not True and Perfect God that is the whole Divinity or Divine Nature and Essence And therefore those who assert in the strictest sense the Singularity of the Divine Essence yet assert That this One Singular Essence subsists distinctly in each Divine Person which whether it be to be understood or not yet is an acknowledgment that there is no conceiving a Divine Person without the Divine Essence But we need not be beholden to any man for this Concession for the thing is plain and evident in all Catholick Writers Petavius has very critically observed the different use of Words in Catholick Writers relating to this Venerable Mystery such as Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis Subsistence Person c. which sometimes occasioned great Misunderstandings between them and is to this day made a pretence of charging the Fathers with great Uncertainty and Obscurity and with contradicting each other and themselves This of late has been much insisted on in order to disparage the Authority of â— as Zealous Contentious Bigots who neither understood one another nor themselves nor the Catholick Faith but so confounded Terms that we can never certainly know what they meant or used such dangerous Terms that if we rely too much upon them we mâ—y easily mâ—stake Hâ—resy for the Catholick Faith Were this true our Case would be very bad but two or three Observations will set this matter in a clear light 1. That very Ambiguity which the Fathers are charged with in the use of Words does certainly prove that by a Divine Person they meant the Divine Essence Nature and Substance The plain Case is this The Catholick Fathers did universally own and profess a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God So that there was no difference in their Faith how different soever their words were The most common Terms whereby they exprest the Unity of the Godhead were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vna Esseâ—â—â—â— Vna Natura Vna Substantia One Essâ—nce One Nâ—ture One Substance and a Trinity they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostates and the Latins Three Persons but sometimes we meet in undoubted Catholick Writers wiâ—â— the direct contrary Expressions such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tres Substantiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis The usual way of reconciling this seeming Contradiction is by saying That when these Fathers use such Expressions as Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances they do not understand this of Three divers or specifically different Essences Natures Substances which is Arianism but of Three Persons and when they affirm that there is but One Hypostasis they do not by One Hypostasis mean One Person which is Sabellianism but One Nature Essence or Substance As we know this very Controversy about One or Three Hypostases was thus composed in the Alexandrian Synod where Athanasius presided And no doubt but this is the true Solution since those who were neither Arians nor Sabellians could not understand such Expressions in any other sense But then the Question still remains How this Ambiguity should happen or how it comes to pass that such contradictory Terms as One Essence and Three Essences One Substance and Three Substances One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases should both be Orthodox and Catholick Now the only Account I can give of this matter is this That these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis which originally signifies Substance of which more presently may signify as the Philosopher speaks either the First or Second Substance either the common Nature which has the same notion and definition common to the whole Kind as Humanity which is the same in all Men or a Singular Subsisting Nature and Substance which in Creatures we call Individuals and in reasonable Creatures Persons Now in analogy to this common Specifick Nature which is one and the same in all its Individuals the Catholick Fathers taught but One Essence Nature Substance and in this sense but One Hypostasis in the Godhead that is a Consubstantial Trinity in analogy to the several Individuals of the same Species in whom only this common Nature did really and actually subsist they ordinarily asserted Three Hypostases sometimes as we see Three Natures and Essences and Substances in the Trinity that is Three Real Substantial subsisting Persons and in this sense Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances was accounted Catholick Doctrine St. Hilary allows Tria in Substantia or Tres Subsâ—antias Three in Substance or Three Substances for Tres Subsistentium Personas Three Subsisting Persons And St. Greg. Nyssen in answer to Eunomius who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences or Substances says That if he understood this distinction of Substances only in opposition to Sabellius who gave three Names to one Suppositum or Substance that not only he but all Catholick Christians assented to it His only fault being in this Case that he uses improper words Three Essences for Three Hypostases Now that which I observe from hence is this That had they not believed each Divine Person to
Singularity of the Divine Essence for it proves quite the contrary it is the Unity of Three which is a Trinity in Unity not the Unity of One which is Singularity and Solitude In the next place I observe That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Catholick Fathers understand in this Mystery the inseparable Union of Relatives in the same Individual Nature not the Union of compleat absolute Natures how close and inseparable soever it may be There is by Nature no Inseparable Union but in the same Individual Nature Three compleat Individuals though of the same Kind and Species how closely and intimately soever they be united are not by Nature inseparable nor essentially One for they may be parted by that Power which united them and when they are parted can subsist apart as Three compleat Minds how intimately soever they should be united by God yet can never be essentially and inseparably One for they are not essential to each other they might have subsisted apart and may be parted again and an External Union cannot so make them One as to be naturally inseparable Which I think is a Demonstration that a Natural Inseparability which is an Essential Unity can be only in One Individual Nature between such Relatives as are Essential to each other and can neither be nor be conceived divided or separated And therefore the Catholick Fathers represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Examples of Natural Unions between things Essentially related to each other in One Individual Nature which either cannot be conceived or at least cannot subsist apart Of this last Kind are a Fountain and its Streams a Tree and its Branches whereby they not only represent the Homoousion but the Inseparable Union of the Divine Persons as every one knows for there cannot be a Fountain but its Waters must flow out nor Streams without a Fountain from whence they flow and though Branches may be separated from the Tree yet they live no longer than they are united and are Branches of that Tree no longer But these are very imperfect Images and without great caution will corrupt our Ideas of the Divine Unity Of all Corporeal Unions the nearest resemblance we have of this and which the Fathers most insist on is the Sun and its natural Splendor for we cannot conceive the Sun without its Splendor nor the Splendor without the Sun they never were never can be parted and therefore though two are essentially one This Representation the Scripture makes of it which calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Brightness of his Father's Glory and in this Sense they teach that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light of Light as it is in the Nicene Creed whereby they do not mean two distinct independent Lights which either are or may be parted though one be lighted at the other this was the Heresy of Hierachas as St. Hilary tells us who represented this Mystery by two Candles one of which is lighted at the other or by one and the same Lamp which is divided and burns in two Sockets but that Light and Splendor which is essential to the same Sun and can never be divided from it as Athanasius teaches But the truest Images we have of this in Nature is the Inseparable Union which is between a Mind and its own Internal Word which are so essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature that they can never be parted nor conceived apart the Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind It is evident That two compleat absolute Minds can never be thus united for they are not Essential to each other not naturally one and therefore not naturally inseparable but a Mind and its Word though two are essentially One and therefore can never be parted but must subsist together and these are the Characters the Scripture gives us of God the Father and his Son the Father Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind the Son his Eternal Infinite Living Subsisting Word And if Father and Son this Eternal Mind and Eternal Word be as essentially One as a mans Mind and his Word are One this is a Demonstration of their Inseparable Union and gives us a sensible Notion and Idea of it This is the account Athanasius every where gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Father and Son are inseparably One the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Light in the Sun To separate the Divine Persons so as not to be in each other whatever other Union we own between them Dionysius of Alexandria charges with Tritheism for the Divine Word must of necessity be one with God and the Holy Spirit be and subsist in him And this Athanasius resolves into such a Sameness and Unity of Nature as must be between two Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature That the Son is in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Splendor in the Sun that he is a genuine proper natural Son in the Father's Essence and Substance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not subsisting out of his Father's Substance as other Creature Sons do That the true Notion of the Sons being in the Father is that the whole Being of a Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Genuine Natural Birth of the Father's Substance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendor is of the Sun That the very Being of the Son is the Form of Species and Divinity of the Father That as the Sun and its Splendor are two but not two Lights but one Light from the Sun enlightening all things with its Splendor and Brightness so the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father and therefore inseparable and thus there is but one God and none else besides him All this plainly refers to the Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Relatives of the same Individual Substance which are really distinct but essentially in each other as the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word that Thought it self cannot part them which is such an Union as can never be between compleat absolute Substances which are not naturally Inseparable nor essentially One. Herein Athanasius places the adequate Notion of the Homoousion the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature He tells us That for this reason the Nicene Fathers taught the Homoousion or that the Son is Consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father to signify that the Son is not only like the Father but to be so of the Father as to be the same in likeness not after the manner of Bodies which are like each other but subsist apart by themselves as Human Sons subsist separately from their Parents but the Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father is of a different Kind and Nature from Human Generations for he is not only like but inseparable from his Father's Substance
Divinity which is absolutely and originally in the Father Well then Here is One Divine Person viz. the Eternal Father who is absolutely and originally God and Two more the Son and Holy Ghost who are each of them in his own Person true and perfect God by having all the Divine Perfections But are not these Three then Three Gods the Unbegotten God who is originally and absolutely God the Begotten God and the Proceeding God No it is the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers that the Trinity is but One Divinity and One God una Summa res One Supreme Being as St. Austin taught and from him Peter Lombard and was confirmed by the Council of Lateran in the Condemnation of Abbot Ioachim For Father Son and Holy Ghost though they are Three true and proper Persons are but One Individual Nature for it is Essential to the Eternal Mind to have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit and the Eternal Word and Spirit live and subsist in the Mind and though living subsisting Persons yet are as individually One with the Mind as a Created Mind its Word and Spirit are One. Whatever is Essential to Nature is in the Individual Unity of it and that is but One Individual Nature which has nothing but what is Essential to it and therefore if as I have already observed and as the Catholick Faith teaches the Son and Spirit the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are Essential Processions of Eternal Original Mind and essentially indivisibly and inseparably in it Father Son and Holy Ghost are as essentially and inseparably One Individual Divinity as any One Nature is One with it self But is not this a kind of Sabellian Composition of a God A whole Divinity made up of Three partial and incomplete Divinities Which St. Austin calls a Triformis Deus By no means What is compounded is made up of Parts which make a compound Nature but perfect Hypostases however united can make no Composition However you unite Iames and Iohn you can never make a compound Man of them because each of them have a perfect Human Nature and as Damascen observes we do not say That the Nature or Species is made up of the Hypostases but is in the Hypostases So that each Divine Person being a complete and perfect Hypostasis having the whole Divine Nature in himself as being True and Perfect God their Union in the same Individual Nature though it makes them One Essential Divinity yet it cannot make a Compound God for however their Persons are united the Divinity or Divine Nature is not compounded each of them being True and Perfect God and not One God by Composition but by an Individual Unity of Nature in Three For every Divine Person is not God in the same sense that every Human Person is a Man as having an Absolute Individual Nature of his own for in this sense the Father only is God as being Absolute Original Divinity an Eternal Self-originated Mind and Three such Persons must be acknowledged to be Three Gods but as I have been forced often to repeat it the Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons as they are Eternal Living Subsisting Processions in the Divine Nature which proves them to have the very same Divinity and to be but One Individual Divinity but not One Compound God For One Individual Nature in Three though distinguisht into Distinct Subsisting Persons makes such a natural inseparable Unity of Will Energy and Power that they are as perfectly One Almighty Agent as every single Person is One Agent as I have shewn above It is thought by some a manifest Contradiction to say as the Athanasian Creed teaches us The Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God But whoever carefully considers what I have now said must own that this is the only true and proper way of speaking in this Mystery If there be but One Absolute Divinity there can be but One God for the Divine Processions in the Unity and Identity of the same Individual Nature cannot multiply the Divinity nor multiply the Name and Title of God for the Name God does not originally absolutely and immediately belong to them but only relatively The proper immediate Character of the Second Person in the Trinity is not God but the Son of God and the Word of God and so the Third is the Spirit of God And though we must necessarily own that the Son of God and the Spirit of God are each of them True and Perfect God equal in all Divine Perfections to the Father as being all the same that the Father is excepting his being a Father yet they are not Three Gods for this is not their immediate Original Character but there is One God the Father his Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit This is what I have above observed from Tertullian That there is One God with his Oeconomy that is his Son and Spirit and that Christ is called God when he is spoken of by himself but when he is named together with the Father he must have his own proper Title which is the Son of God and the Reason is the same as to the Holy Spirit by which Rule we can never say That Father Son and Holy Ghost though each of them be God are Three Gods but there are Three God the Father his Son and Holy Spirit The Father God of himself the Son and Spirit Eternal Processions and Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity and Identity of the Father's Godhead They have all the same Divinity their Glory equal their Majesty coeternal but their different manner of having it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguishes their Names and Characters The Father is God absolutely God an Unbegotten Self-originated Being so God that there is no other God besides him The Son is not absolutely God but the Son of God and when he is called God in Scripture it is in no other sense but as the Son of God for the Son of God must be God the Son Nor is the Holy Spirit absolutely God but the Spirit of God which is all we mean when we call him God for the Spirit of God must be God the Holy Ghost This is the Catholick Faith and let any Man try if he can find Three Gods in it For when we number Father Son and Holy Ghost we must not number them by the common Name of Nature which is One Undivided Divinity in them all but by their Relative Names and Characters which do not only distinguish their Persons but signify their Unity Order and Relations in the same Nature We must not call them Three Gods because God is not the original Name of the Son or Spirit and therefore they are not Three Gods but there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead The One God the Father the Son of God and the Spirit of God so that there is but One God in the Christian Faith if the Son of God be
Disputes amongst themselves which their common Adversaries are so apt to improve into Scepticism Infidelity or Heresy And therefore for a Conclusion I shall only take a brief Review of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article of a Trinity in Unity and apply it in a few words to our Socinian Adversaries The Faith of the Catholick Church taught by Christ and his Apostles is that there is but One God but this One God is a Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit in the Essential Unity of the same Undivided and Undiversified Godhead And this is the Faith which all the Catholick Fathers have owned and taught in their several Ages The whole Christian Church Baptizes as our Saviour commanded in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and this is the Rule of their Faith to believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost A plain simple Faith could Men have been contented to believe God concerning himself Let our Socinian Adversaries tell us what there is absurd impossible or contradictious in this Faith Will they venture to say That it is absurd or contradictious that God should have a Son No! in some sense they will allow this true they themselves believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost they acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God as he is frequently called in Scripture and that in a higher sense than any other Man is the Son of God but that he is but a Man after all though advanced by God to Divine Honours above all Principalities and Powers and made the Judge both of the Quick and of the Dead and this they affirm to be all that the Scripture means in calling Christ the Son of God But this is not the present Dispute They know that the Catholick Church believed otherwise that Christ is the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before all worlds God of God very God of very God and they know also that thus the Catholick Fathers expounded those Texts which concern the Sonship and Divinity of our Saviour and they cannot but confess That they are very capable of such an Exposition nay that it is very difficult to put any other sense upon many Texts and the only reason why they reject these Catholick Expositions is the pretended Absurdity and Contradiction of the Catholick Faith Here then we join issue with them and desire them to shew us what is impossible or contradictious in this Faith That there is something incomprehensible in this Mystery that is something which we have no Natural adequate Ideas of we readily acknowledge with the whole Catholick Church and some of our Adversaries grant That it is possible for a thing to be whereof we have no Idea and then it seems to me very unreasonable to add but we are no ways concerned nor can we Reason or Discourse about those things whereof we have no Ideas For the direct contrary seems to be the more natural consequence that if God thinks fit to reveal such things to us of which we have no Ideas we are concerned and obliged to believe them for if they may be true they are the proper Objects of Faith though they want the Evidence of Natural Ideas But I do not intend to dispute this now but refer them to the Bishop of Worcester ' s Answer to Mr. Lock ' s Second Letter and to a late Sermon and its Vindication Concerning the Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy What I have now to say is of another Nature viz. That we have an Idea of a Trinity in Unity and such an Idea as contains nothing absurd impossible or contradictious in it That very Idea which I have so largely explained One Absolute Divinity with Two Eternal Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature The Eternal Father Eternal Self-originated Mind with his Eternal Word his Eternal Son and the Eternal Spirit of Father and Son This is that Idea which the Scripture gives us of it and which the Catholick Church hath always taught Every Man may understand what is meant by it and therefore it is not Jargon and Nonsense and I think I have sufficiently vindicated it from Tritheism and Contradiction and have no more to say of that nature till I hear what they have to object against what is already said and when they come to consider this Matter again as Men that shall certainly be called to an Account for it in this World as well as in the next I hope they will see reason to grow out of conceit with their own Philosophy about Emanations and Processions a Priority of Time and Priority of Nature Self-Existence and Necessary Existence and such like Arian Objections which were made and answered many Ages since and which they may find sufficiently answered in this Treatise This brings back the Dispute to Scripture where the last Appeal must lie in all such Matters without appealing for the Sense of Scripture to Natural Ideas and Philosophy And if the Interpretations of the Catholick Fathers were of any Authority with these Men I have already shewn how they expounded Scripture which will always be a venerable Authority to modest Men and sober Christians how much soever it be despised by Hereticks But it is time to put an end to this Treatise we may consider their Expositions of Scripture some other time THE END DR Sherloc◠Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity Third Edition Quarto Apology for Writing against Socinians Quarto The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy A Sermon Quarto A Vindication of the Sermon in Answer to some Socinian Remarks An Answer to the Animad versions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity By I. B. A. M. Quarto A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for Writing against Socinians Quarto A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity Quarto The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet Quarto All Printed for William Rogers Quâ nec dicuntur ut cogitantur nec cogitantur ut sunt Aug. de Trinit l. 5. c. 3. Cùm ergo quaeritur quid tria vel quid tres conferimus nos ad inventendum aliquod speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamur haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 3. Ad se quippe Pater dicitur Persona non ad Filium aut Spiritum Sanctum Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 6. Cur ergo non haec tria simul unam Personam dicimus sicut unam Essentiam Deum sed tres dicimus Personas cùm tres Deos aut tres essentias non dicamus nisi quia volumus vel unum aliquod vocabulum servire huic significationi quâ intelligitur Trinitas ne emnino taceremus interrogati quid tres cùm tres esse fateremur Ibid.
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy AND THE Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers Concerning A TRINITY in UNITY By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXC VIII THE PREFACE I Have little to say to the Reader having sufficiently Explained the Design of this Treatise in the First Section Those who remember how this Controversy has been of late managed may possibly expect what they will not find some sharp Resentments of the Ill Usage I have met with and as sharp Returns but I write not to Revenge my self but to Explain and Vindicate the Truly Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith of a Trinity in Unity which requires a Composed and Sedate Mind both in the Writer and Reader For this Reason I have thus long delayed the Publication of this Treatise the greatest part of which was Printed Two Years since that those who will ever grow Cool might have time to recover their Temper And did I not hope that the Publication of it at this time would tend more to quiet Mens Minds to stop the Mouths of Hereticks and to secure the Catholick Faith than a Passive Silence it should never see the Light how much soever my own Reputation might suffer by it But I persuade my self That the Authority of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Fathers is not at so low an Ebb even in this Age as to be easily despised and therefore their Explications their Arguments their Answers to the Objections of Hereticks will have their due weight and I have not gone one step further I appeal to the Catholick Fathers and am contented to stand or fall by their Sentence I have not wilfully misrepresented their Sense in any thing and have taken all possible care not to mistake it and as far as Human Authority is concerned here I must leave the matter for I know of no further Appeal The CONTENTS CHAP. I. SECT I. THE Present State of the Socinian Controversy and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question Page 1. SECT II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture-Terms 4 The Form of Baptism the Rule and Standard of Faith ibid. That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are more easily understood and give us a truer Idea of a Trinity in Vnity than any Artificial Terms 5 c. SECT III. That the Title of God attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the signification of Ecclesiastical Words 12 This particularly Explained with respect to those Terms Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person c. 13 c. SECT IV. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the real distinction of Persons in the Trinity 20 c. SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Vnity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead explained at large 24 SECT VI. Concerning the Vnity of God 33 In what sense the Catholick Church believed in One God ibid. Tritheism an old Sabellian and Arian Objection against the Trinity 34 How answered by the Catholick Fathers 37 c. CHAP. II. AN Examination of some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy 51 What Ways the Considerer dislikes 52 c. What way he took viz. consulting Scripture and Natural Sentiments 56 SECT II. Concerning the Traditionary Faith of the Church with respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity 60 What the Catholick Church is from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith ibid. What Evidence we have for this Tradition from the Ancient Heresies condemned by the Catholick Church 64 Of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture 77 SECT III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity 80 His Requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing 81 SECT IV. Concerning his state of the Question That One and the same God is Three different Persons 84 His Examination of these Terms God Unity Identity Distinction Number and Person And 1. Of the Notion of God 86 SECT V. His Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person His Sabellian Notion of a Person that there is but One single Person in the Trinity as Person signifies properly a particular Intelligent Being 88 This he proves from his Notions of Vnity and Distinction the Vnity and Distinction of Ideas of Principle and of Position 91 What he means by an obscure confused Knowledge and a general confused Faith of the Trinity 101 SECT VI. What the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity 103 His Sabellian Notion of One God to be adored under Three different Titles and Characters Ibid. His Scripture-proof of this Examin'd 104 c. His attempt to reconcile this with God's being One and Three 108 c. And with the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity 113 His Account of the Vnion of God and Man 115 What end the belief of the Trinity and Incarnation serve not as a Matter of Faith and Speculation but as an artificial representation of God's love to man 120 CHAP. III. AN Account of the Sabellian Heresy and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it 124 The several kinds of Sabellianism 1. Those who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three names appearances and offices of the same Person And here the question was not whether the Son was a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person but whether they were distinct Persons from the Father 125 By what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 127 2. That the Son is distinguished from the Father only as a man's word is distinguished from himself 133 And by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 134 3. Some made God a compound Being and Father Son and Holy Ghost the Three Parts of this one God 143 By what Arguments the Fathers opposed it Ibid. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost 150 SECT I. The true sense of the Homoousion from those misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 152 SECT II. Some Rules for Expounding the Homoousion 158 SECT III. What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion 163 SECT IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full signification of the Homoousion with respect to the specifick Vnity of the Divine Nature 170 SECT V. That by the Homoousion the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a specifick but a natural Vnity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son 180 Damascen's distinction between one in Notion and one in reality Ibid. This appears from their Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 181 And the Catholick Fathers lay the
God excepting their Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost whereby they are distinguished into Three As for Example If by Nature Essence Substance Existence Subsistence however they may differ in their formal Conceptions they only mean a true and real Being who actually perfectly compleatly is what it is God is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most perfect sense of all for he is All Being his Name is Iehovah which as Learned Men most probably conclude signifies a Plenitude and Perfection of Being which is such a Perfection as includes all other Perfections in it for Perfect Being is every thing which perfectly is This is the peculiar Name and essential Character of God and of God only God is that is is Eternal Essential Immutable Life and Being in which sense the Apostle tells us That He only has Immortality Creatures are but are not Essential Life and Being Being is not included in the formal Conception or Definition of any Created Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature was a true Definition of Human Nature before any man was created and would be so for ever though all mankind were annihilated And therefore we may reasonably enough in Creatures distinguish between Nature Substance Existence Subsistence if by Nature we understand that Idea or Pattern according to which they are made and by Substance that which is made whatever it is whether Matter or Spirit which is the Subject of those Moral or Natural Perfections which belong to the Idea of such a Creature and by Existence and Subsistence their actual Being which they receive from their Maker with regard to their compleat or incompleat manner of Existence But now we can form no Idea of God without perfect life and being for whatever else according to our imperfâ—ct manner of conceiving is contained in the Idea of God is nonsense and contradiction without it Infinite Wisdom Infinite Power and Infinite Goodness is the Idea of nothing without Eternal and Necessary Being and an Infinitely Perfect Nothing is a contradiction in the very Notion But Infinite Perfect Life and Being includes all other Perfections and is the most simple and comprehensive Idea of God for whatever perfectly is is whatever is any real Perfection So that there is no foundation nor any occasion for such Distinctions of Essence Nature Substance Existence Subsistence in God for his Essence Nature Substance is his Being and his Being is perfect Existence and Subsistence These Terms differ in their formal Conceptions when applied to Creatures but in essential Life and Being these cannot be formally distinguished for we cannot conceive Existence or Subsistence as superadded to Nature as we do in Creatures because Necessary Essential Being is the Divine Nature Nor can we distinguish between Essence Nature and Substance because there is no distinction in God between the Subject and its Faculties and Powers which is the Foundation of that distinction in Creatures Men who do not love to use words without any Notion belonging to them find themselves extremely puzzled to fit any distinct Ideas to these words when applied to God When the Fathers and Schoolmen apply these Terms to God they take care to shew how differently they are used when applied to God from what they signifie when applied to Creatures They assert the most absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature without the least composition and indeed expound all these Terms to the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esse to signify the most Absolute Being or the most Perfect Is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is Simple Perfect Existence One St. Austin whose Authority is sacred in the Schools will furnish us with sayings enough to this purpose Nothing is more certain with him than that in God to Be to Live to Understand or whatever else we can attribute to God is all the same is Perfect Being or Essence And therefore he owns the impropriety of those Terms Substance and Subsistence when applied to God But notwithstanding this that God is the most Pure Simple Being without any imaginable composition yet since we cannot comprize all that is necessary for us to know of God in one simple uncompounded thought we must unavoidably conceive the Idea of God by Parts under different formal Conceptions such as his Wisdom his Power his Goodness his Truth and Faithfulfulness c. for such distinct representations as these God makes of himself in the Holy Scriptures they are what we can distinctly apprehend and are absolutely necessary for the Government of our lives and to know what we are to expect from God But such distinctions as we can frame no distinct conceptions of as are apt to corrupt our Notions of God with corporeal Representations and perplex our Minds with endless and inextricable difficulties ought to be cautiously used and carefully explained to prevent all mistakes and to reduce them to such plain and simple Notions as come nearest to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Essence And now I suppose it will admit of no dispute Whether the Father who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence or whether the Son who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence and so in like manner the Holy Ghost For this signifies no more than To Be in the most perfect and absolute sense of Being which is the first and most simple Idea of God Absolute Essence and Being So that if the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is each of them is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most Perfect and Absolute sense of these Terms For if each of them is and each of them is God each of them is only in that Notion of Being which is included in the Idea of God which contains the most absolute Perfection of Being that is all that is absolutely Perfect And will any Trinitarian deny That the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is And then I know not what other Dispute there can be about this matter if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is in the most Perfect Notion of Being and that is all that is meant by Essence Substance Subsistence when spoken of God In the same manner we may examine the signification of the word Person which has occasioned no small Dispute We say that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost and each of these Divine Persons is in himself True and Perfect God Now if we must call these Divine Three Three Persons which long Use and Custom has made Reasonable and in some measure Necessary the most certain way to determine the signification of Person when applied to God is to consider in what sense one who is True and Perfect God may be called a Person for GOD is the Scripture Name and Character which is distinctly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore that must give the Signification to all other words of Human Use
and Institution as far as relates to this Mystery These words Person and Hypostasis were very anciently used without any Definition to determine their Signification till they became matter of dispute Boetius has given us a definition of Person which has been generally allowed of ever since that a Person is an individual Substance of a rational Nature Let us then examine whether this definition can belong to a Divine Person to one who is True and Perfect God As for Substance Boetius tells us That it is essential to the Notion of Person for a Person cannot subsist in Accidents much less in Modes which are less than Accidents and it is certain no other Notion of Person can belong to one who is God For a Person who is God must be Substance in the most Perfect and Absolute sense that is as I have already explained it Perfect Being and Essence As St. Austin expresly tells us That in God to Be and to be a Person is the same thing and that when we say the Person of the Father we mean nothing else but the Substance of the Father and thus it is with respect to the whole Trinity It is certain St. Austin never dream'd of defining a Person much less a Divine Person by a Mode For to make a Person who is God and therefore the most Perfect Being a Mode which if it be any thing is next to nothing no Substance but a meer Modification of Substance is both new Divinity and new Philosophy unknown either to Fathers or Schoolmen But meer Substance can't make a Person unless it be a Living Understanding Substance the Substance of a rational Nature And this must be the Notion of a Person when applied to God for God is Pure Infinite Mind and Intellect the First and Supreme Life and Intellect in whom to Live to Understand and to Be is the same thing as I observed before from St. Austin and if a Divine Person signifies One who is God every Person in the Godhead is Supreme Absolute Life and Intellect And this is what we must understand by a Person when we say That the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person for no other Notion of a Person can belong to any one who is True and Perfect God There is another Term of great consideration in this definition which still remains to be Explained and that is Individual That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature which Boetius opposes to Vniversal Substances which are nothing else but the abstracted Notions of generical or specifick Substances which have no real and actual Subsistence and therefore are not properly Substances but only the Ideas of Substances and therefore are not Persons neither for Substance and Person are only in Singulars and Individuals which Subsist by themselves Thus Human Nature considered in general as common to all Mankind has no actual Subsistence and therefore is not a Human Person but it subsists only in particular Men and that makes every particular Man a Human Person for the Person of the Man is nothing but the Man himself And so St. Austin tells us it is in the Holy Trinity the Person of the Father is the Father himself and the Person of the Son is the Son himself and if Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three they must be Three Persons for each of them is himself and not the other and Three Selfs are Three Persons I and Thou and He are Personal Pronouns I my self Thou thy self He himself by which Argument the Catholick Fathers prove against the Sabellians that Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons by these Personal Pronouns which the Scripture applies to them as our Sâ—viour speaks of himself in the first Person I and my Father of his Father in the Second Person I thank Thee O Father of the Holy Ghost in the Third Person when He the Spirit of truth shall come Now I and Thou and He must signifie Three distinct Persons or Three Selfs Person indeed as St. Austin observes is not a Relative Term but is spoken ad se of the thing it self For if Person were a Relative then as we say The Father is the Father of his Son so we must say The Person of the Father is the Person of the Son which is absurd but yet Person must be praedicated Plurally according to the number of Selfs for as many Selfs as there are so many Persons are there for Selfs make numbers because one self is not another Three singular intelligent Selfs singulares intelligentes as Melancton calls them is the proper Notion of Three Persons and in this sense Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons if each of them be True and Perfect God For God is certainly himself If the Father be God the Father himself is God if the Son be God the Son himself is God if the Holy Ghost be God the Holy Ghost himself is God This is the plain express Doctrine of Scripture and what every man may understand and what every one who believes a Trinity must profess and no man needs believe more SECT IV. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the real Distinction of Persons in the Trinity II. THESE Names Father Son and Holy Ghost especially when the Name GOD is Attributed to each of them That the Father is God the Son God the Holy Ghost God proves a real and substantial distinction between them for these are opposite Relations which cannot meet in the same Subject For a Father cannot be Father to himself but to his Son nor can a Son be Son to himself but to his Father nor can the Holy Ghost Proceed from himself nor in this sense be his own Spirit but the Spirit of the Father and Son from whom he Proceeds And therefore the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit nor the Son the Father or Holy Spirit nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son And yet if each of them be God each of them Perfectly is or is Perfect Being and therefore are as Perfectly Distinct as three which perfectly are and are not one another To talk of Three Distinct Beings Substances Minds or Spirits may be Misrepresented by perverse Wits to the prejudice of the Divine Unity though the Catholick Fathers besides Hypostasis did not scruple to use the same or other equivalent Expressions concerning the Holy Trinity when they disputed against the Sabellians yet if we believe a Trinity whether we will or no we must acknowledge Three each of which Perfectly Is or is Perfect Being and no one is the other For if we deny this we must either deny that the Father Is or that the Son Is or that the Holy Ghost Is and to deny either of these is to deny a Trinity And if it be Objected against this That according to St. Austin's Notion though it was not peculiarly his but common to all the Greek and
Latin Fathers nay to the Schoolmen themselves and must be owned by all Men of Sense that esse vivere intelligere sapere velle bonum esse magnum esse c. to be to live to understand to be wise to will to be good and to be great or whatever else we can attribute to the Divine Nature is but unum omnia all one and the same in God I say if it be Objected that the consequence of this is That to say that in this sense of Is the Father Is the Son Is the Holy Ghost Is is equivalent to asserting Three Distinct Substances Minds Spirits Lives Understandings Wills c. in the Trinity I cannot help it St. Austin was never yet charged with Tritheism Let them either deny what St. Austin and the rest of the Fathers teach about this matter and try if they can defend the absolute Sâ—mplicity of the Divine Nature without it or let them deny if they think good that the Father Is the Son Is and the Holy Ghost Is in this Notion of Perfect and Absolute Being or try if they can find such a medium between Perfect Is and is not as can belong to any Being which is True and Perfect God or allow which is the true solution of it that Is and Is and Is Essence and Essence and Essence are but One Eternal Is One Eternal Essence as they are but One God Of which more presently I always was of opinion that these Terms in the plural number ought not to be familiarly used because few Men can conceive of them as they are worthy of God and therefore the Fathers were vâ—ry cautious in using them which they very rarely did but when they were extorted from them by the perverse importunity of Hereticks but I cannot see how it is possible to deny three Selfs or three Is's in the Uâ—ity of the Godhead without denying a Trinity and if each of these Three be himself and not another and each of them Is and Is by himself this is the least we can say of the Ever Blessed Trinity and this is all with respect to their Distinction that we need say of them So that if Father Son and Holy Ghost be so in a true and proper Notion are in truth and reality what these Names of Father Son and Spirit signify That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper natural Father the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper genuine Son and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a true proper sense the Spirit of the Father and the Son as the Catholick Fathers always Professed they must be as truly and perfectly Distinct as Father and Son are The only Question then is Whether these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost signify naturally and properly when spoken of the Holy Trinity or are only metaphorical and allusive Names though what they should be Metaphors of is not easy to conceive and as absurd to conceive that there should be any Metaphors in God who is all Perfect Essence and Being The Divine Nature and Perfections which we cannot conceive of as they are may be expressed by Metaphors taken from some thing which is analogous in Creatures upon which account we read of the Hands and Eyes and Ears and Bowels and Mouth of God Creatures may serve for Metaphors for Shadows and Images to represent something of God to us but the reality of all is in God So that we may allow Father and Son in some sense to be Metaphorical Names when applied to God not that God the Father is not in the highest and most perfect sense a Father and his Son a most proper natural genuine Son but because the Divine Generation is so perfect a Communication of the Divine Nature and Being from Father to Son that Human Generations Creature-Fathers and Sons are but obscure imperfect images and resemblances of it When any thing is spoken Metaphorically of God the Metaphor and Image is always in the Creatures the Truth Perfection and Reality of all in God And if this be a certain and universal rule then if God be a Father if he have a Son an only Bâ—gotten Son Begotten Eternally of himself not Made nor Created but Begotten though this Eternal Generation be infinitely above what we can conceive yet it is evident that God the Father is more Properly and Perfectly a Father and his Son more Properly and Perfectly a Son than any Creature-Fathers or Sons are But I think this will admit of no Dispute if we own that God has a Son who is himself True and Perfect God For a Son who is Perfect God is God of God That he is a Son proves that he receives his Nature from his Father for this is Essential to the Notion of a Son That he is Perfect God proves the Perfection of his Generation from the Perfection of his Nature For to be Perfect God of Perfect God is to receive the Whole Perfect Undivided Nature of his Father which is the most perfect Generation that is possible for a Whole to beget a Whole And if God the Father and his Son be Truly and Perfectly Father and Son they must be Truly and Perfectly Distinct That is they are in a proper sense Two and by the same reason Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three And we need no other proof of this but the very Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost if we understand them in a proper and natural Sense SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead III. THESE Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost as they signify and prove a real Distinction between these Three so they also signify and prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead Which reconciles the Faith of the Trinity with the Faith of one God The same One Divine Essence and Godhead being and subsisting Whole Perfect and Entire in each of these Divine Three I shall Explain and Confirm this matter more at large hereafter and therefore at present shall only briefly represent this Notion and the reason of it One Eternal Self-Originated Divine Nature is One Divinity and One God and nothing can destroy the Unity of God but what destroys the Unity of the Divine Nature by Division or Multiplication And if this be the true Notion of the Unity of God and if it be not I would desire to know why this is not and what is then the Unity of God may be preserved in Three each of whom is True and Perfect God if the same One Divine Nature or Divinity subsists distinctly in them all And the very Characters and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost do necessarily infer and prove the same One Divinity in them all And therefore the Christian Trinity is so far from contradicting that it establishes the Faith of one God As to explain this in a few words All Christians agree That God whom we call the Father is an
Sabellians did nor Two different Substances as the Arians did For when God is born of God this Divine Nativity will neither admit a Unity of Person nor a Diversity of Nature For Father and Son he who begets and he who is begotten must be Two Persons and the Son who is begotten of the Substance of his Father must be consubstantial with him It were easy to multiply Quotations to this purpose both out of these and numerous other Ancient Writers but this is Proof enough that the Primitive Fathers would not be frighted out of the true Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity by the loud Clamours of Tritheism but rejected such a Notion of One God as confined the Godhead to One Single Solitary Person as Iudaism and an Anti-trinitarian Heresy For we know in what sense the Iews owned but One God viz. in the very sense that the Socinians and all Anti-trinitarians do that is That there is but One who is God but One Divine Person and in this sense these Ancient Fathers rejected it But besides these general Sayings they industriously confute this Notion of the Unity of the Godhead which confines it to one single Person that the One God is so One that there is and can be but One Divine Person who is true and perfect God The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do expresly teach that there is but one God This the Ancient Hereticks perpetually objected against the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity And St. Hilary observes what danger there is in answering this Objection if it be not done with great caution For it may be equally impious to deny or to affirm it For the True Catholick Faith of One God lies between two such contrary Heresies as are ready to take advantage one way or other whatever Answer you give If you own that there is but One God without taking notice that this One God has an only begotten Son who is True and Perfect God the Arians take advantage of this against the Eternal Godhead of the Son If you say That the Father is God and the Son God and yet there is but One God the Sabellians hence conclude That Father and Son are but One Person as they are One God But in opposition to both these Heresies he tells us That though the Catholick Church did not deny One God yet they taught God and God and denied the Unity of the Godhead both in the Arian and Sabellian Notion of One God And consequently That they professed to believe God and God and God though not Three Gods but One God yet in that very sense which both Ancient and Modern Hereticks call Tritheism There is no dispute but the Scripture does very fully and expresly teach us That there is but One God Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord 6. Deut. 4. which our Saviour himself approves 12. Mark 29. and the Scribe expounds 32. Well master Thou hast said the truth for there is One God and there is none other but He And this is often confirmed both in the Old and New Testament But then the Fathers think that they have an unanswerable Argument to prove That by One God is not meant that there is but One who is God because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us that there is but One God do attribute the Name and Dignity and Power and all the Natural Perfections of God to more than One. St. Hilary explains this Argument at large the sum of which in short is this That we must learn the knowledge of God from Divine Revelation for Humane Understandings which are accustomed to Corporeal and Bodily Images are too weak of themselves to discern and contemplate Divine things nor is there any thing in our selves or in Created Nature that can give us an adequate notion and conception of the Nature and Unity of God We must believe God concerning himself and his own Nature and yield a ready assent to what he reveals to us For we must either deny him to be God as the Heathens do if we reject his Testimony or if we believe him to be God we must conceive no otherwise of him than as he himself hath taught us This is very reasonable if we believe upon God's Authority To believe all that God reveals and to expound the Revelation by it self not to put such a sense upon one part of the Revelation as shall contradict another but to put such a sense upon the words as makes the whole consistent with it self As in the present Dispute concerning the Unity of God The Scripture assures us that there is but One God and we believe that there is but One God Excepting the Valentinians and such kind of Hereticks all Christians both Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Profession But the Question is In what sense the Scripture teaches that there is but One God Whether this One God signifies One single Divine Person or One God with his Only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit who have the same Nature and Divinity The Arians and Socinians embrace the first Sense of the words That One God is One Divine Person and for this reason will not own Christ or the Holy Spirit to be True and Perfect God because there is but One God and Three Divine Persons they say are Three Gods Now unless we will pretend to understand the Divine Nature and the Divine Unity better than God himself does we must refer this Dispute to Scripture and if we have the same Authority to believe more Divine Persons than One that we have to believe but One God then the Unity of God in the Scripture-notion of it is no Tritheism nor any objection against the belief of a Trinity for there may be but One only God and yet Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead This is St. Hilary's Argument and it is a very good one That Moses himself who has taught us that there is but One God has taught us to confess God and God that we have the same Authority to believe the Son of God to be God that we have to believe One God And therefore though we do and must believe One God we must not so believe One God as to deny the Son of God to be God for this is to contradict Moses and the Prophets This Argument he prosecutes at large throughout the IV th and V th Books of the Trinity and alledges all those Old Testament Proofs for the plurality of Divine Persons and for the Divinity of Christ which whatever opinion some Modern Wits and Criticks have of them have been applied to that purpose by all Christian Writers from the beginning of Christianity and were that my present Business might be easily vindicated from the Cavils and Exceptions of Hereticks St. Paul tells us That there is One God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and One Iesus Christ
not only the Name and Title of God but the Divine Nature and Perfections to more Persons than One. And this is the only Answer that need be given and the best Answer that can be given to this Objection of Tritheism for God knows his own Nature and his own Unity best And it is enough for us to acknowledge God to be One as the Scripture teaches him to be One that is that there is but One God but that this One God has an Eternal only begotten Son and an Eternal Spirit in the Unity of the same Godhead This is the account Tertullian gives us of those Expressions when the Scripture asserts that there is but One God and that there is none besides him For without denying the Son we may truly affirm That there is but One only God whose Son he is For though he has a Son he does not lose his Name of the One and only God when he is named without his Sâ—n and so he is when what is said is appropriated to him as the first persâ—n for in the order of Nature aâ—â— of ouâ— Conceptions the Father is befoâ—â—â—he Son and therefore must be named bâ—â—ore him So that there is but One God the Father and besides him there is no other which does not deny the Son but another God which rejects the multitude of False Gods which the Heathens worshipped but the Son as being inseparably united to him is included in the Unity of the Father's Godhead though not named which as he well observes he could not be without making another God of him Had the Father said There is no other God besides me excepting my Son this had made the Son another God a new separate Divinity and would have been as improper as if the Sun should say There is no other Sun besides me excepting my Rays The Sum of which is this That the Title of the One and only God and besides him there is no other God does in a peculiar manner belong to the Father who is the One only God with his Son and Spirit but this does not exclude the Son or Spirit from being true and perfect God for they are not other Gods from the Father but have the same Divinity and are inseparably â—mited to the Father and therefore are included in the â—â—ity of the Godhead without being named whereas thâ—â—r being named would have excepted them out of the Unity of the Godhead and made other Gods of them And though the Son when he is named alâ—ne is called God this does not make Two Gods because he is God only by his Unity with his Father St. Hilary gives much the same account of it That when the Scripture teaches that there is One God and no other God besides him this does not exclude the Son of God from being true and perfect God because the Son is not another God He being of the same Substance with God the Father God of God and inseparably united to him Another God does not signify another Divine Person but another Divinity another separate and independent Principle and Fountain of Deity And besides this St. Hilary endeavours to prove at large from several Texts of the Old Testament that this very expression of one God and no other besides him is applied not only to the Father but to the Son and is very justly applicable to each of them because each of them have a Personal and Incommunicable Unity The Father is the One God and there is none besides him for he is the only Deus Innascibilis the only God who is God of himself without any Communication of the Divine Nature to him from any other Divine Person The Son is the One God and there is none besides him that is the Deus Vnigenitus the only begotten God and there is no other begotten God but he So that each of them is the One God For between One and One that is One of One there is no Second Nature of the Eternal Dâ—ity I shall not dispute these matters now which will be more proper in another place it is enough at present that we learn from them what Sense these Fathers had concerning the Unity of God viz. That it is not the Unity of a Sâ—ngle Person so as to exclude all other Persons from the Name and Nature of God but a Unity of Nature and Principle That there are not Two different Divinities nor Two Principles of Divinity which have no Communication with each other but that there is One Self-originated Being who communicates his own Nature without Division and Separation to his Eternal Son and by and with his Son to his Eternal Spirit Thus St. Hilary concludes this Dispute That to confess One God but not a solitary God that is not one single solitary Person is the Faith of the Church which confesses the Father in the Son But if out of ignorance of this Heavenly Mystery we pretend that One God signifies One single Divine Person we know not God as not owning the Faith of God in God This is plain sense which every Christian may understand and what every one must believe who wiâ—l be a Christian We must believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son and that each of these Three is in himself as distinguished from the other Two true and perfect God but though they are Three and each of them true and perfect God yet they are not Three Gods because there is but One and the same Divinity in them The same individual numerical Divine Nature being whole perfect undivided in them all originally in the Father by Generation in the Son and by Procession in the Holy Ghost as I have already explained it which is the most perfect Unity we can conceive between Three Wholes or Three each of which have the same whole undivided Nature distinctly in themselves If this will not be allowed to be such a Unity as is included in the Notion of One God that the natural Notion of One God is of One only who is God which is contradictory to the belief of Three each of whom is in himself true and perfect God the answer the Catholick Fathers give to this as I have now shewn ought to satisfy all Christians that this is not the Scripture-notion of One God That there is but One who is God because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us that there is but One God do also teach us that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead That not only the Father is God as an Infinite Eternal Self-originated Being and upon this account in a peculiar manner called the One and only true God but the Son also is true God and the Holy Ghost true God by the Communication of the same Divine Nature to them Now God knows his own Nature and Unity best and if he declares himself to
those Heresies which the Catholick Church condemned and from the Corrupted Remains of the Ancient Faith which appeared in them For these Hereticks were originally Christians and professed themselves Christians and therefore did not wholly renounce the Christian Faith but grafted their Heresies on it As to confine my self to the Subjâ—ct of the present Dispute What we are to understand by Father Son and Holy Ghost Whether Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons or not each of whom is distinctly by himself True and Perfect God but in the Unity of the same Divine Nature and Godhead Now that this was the received Faith of the Catholick Church we may learn both from the Valentinians Sabellians and Arians Though the Valentinians as I observed before had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity either with the Platonick Philosophy as that it self had been corrupted by the Iunior Platonists or with the Pagan Theology yet the Propagation of their Aeons in different Degrees and Descents from the first Supreme Aeon the Unbegotten One and the Invisible and Incomprehensible Father as they stile him shews what they thought the Catholick Faith was concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Spirit which they took to be a Substantial Generation and Procession and accordingly in imitation of this Faith asserted a Substantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Emanation of one Aeon from another and which is more none of the Ancient Fathers who wrote against this Heresy as far as I have observed ever quarrel with them upon this account Nay Tertullian though he abominates these Heresies owns this Probole or Emanation in a true Catholick Sense and tells us that these Hereticks borrowed this word from the Catholick Faith though they fitted it to their Heresy And challenges any man to say whether the Divine Word be not produced by the Father and if it be Here says he is the Prolation or Emanation which the true Catholick Faith owns And adds That the fault of this Heresy was not their producing one Aeon from another but that besides the number of their fictitious Aeons they did separate these Emanations and Aeons from their Author that the Aeons knew not the Father nay desired to know him but could not know him and was e'en dissolved with Passion and Desire whereas in the Catholick Faith there is the most Inseparable Union of the Son with the Father and the most Intimate and Perfect Knowledge of him So that Tertullian allows of a Real and Substantial Production of the Person of the Son from the Person of the Father as the Valentinians pretended of their Aeons and asserts that these Hereticks learnt this from the Catholick Faith of the Trinity And that the Church must not reject this Probole Prolation or Emanation in an Orthodox Catholick Use of those words because Hereticks abuse them to countenance their own Heresies As for the Noetians and Sabellians for however they explain the Doctrine of the Trinity whether by Three Names or Three Powers or Three Parts while they Teach That the One God is but One Single Person the Heresy is the same it is impossible the Catholick Church should reject this Heresy without asserting Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons in the Unity of the Godhead each of whom is as True and Perfect God as each of Three Men Peter Iames and Iohn is a True Perfect Distinct Man though these Three Men are not uniâ—ed as the Three Divine Persons are The occasion of this Heresy was That they thought that Three Real Distinct Persons in the Godhead were Three Gods and therefore though being profess'd Christians and consequently baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost they durst not deny Father Son and Holy Ghost yet neither would they own Three Divine Persons but turned them into Three Names or Three Parts of One Person which has much more sense in it than Three Modes though Three Modes of the same Person let them call them Three Personalities if they please is the same Heresy if there be but One Suppositum as One Man may be the Subject of Three or Three and twenty Modes and be but One Human Person still Noetus and Sabellius did certainly apprehend that by Father Son and Holy Ghost the Catholick Church understood Three Distinct Substantial Divine Persons or else why should they charge them with Tritheism upon this account and turn Three Persons into Three Names or Three Parts of One and the same God to avoid the Imputation of Three Gods And if this had not been the belief of the Catholick Church what meant their Zeal against this Heresy For all the Wit of Man can't find a Medium between Sabellianism and Three Divine Substantial Persons A Trinity must be Three Somewhats as it has been lately called and then it must either be One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Three Modes or compounded of Three Parts or be Three Distinct Suppositums and Persons Now if this had been the Catholick Faith That the Trinity is but One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Modes c. I cannot imagine why the Catholick Church should have quarrell'd with these Hereticks or they with the Catholick Church unless they both mistook one another But if the Sabellians and Catholicks understood themselves and each other and did intend to contradict each other we certainly know what the Catholick Faith was For there is nothing contradicts a Noetian and Sabellian Trinity but a Trinity of Distinct Substantial Divine Persons And Novatianus well observes That these Hereticks did acknowledge the Divinity of Christ That whoever Christ was it was evident from those Characters given of him in Scripture That he was True and Perfect God And because the Father is True and Perfect God and Christ True and Perfect God for fear of owning Two Gods they make the Father and the Son to be but One and the same Person The Arians denied the Eternal Godhead of Christ and made a Creature of him though the most excellent Creature the Minister and Instrument of God in making the World and the reason of this Heresy was the same viz. for fear of a Plurality of Gods should they allow Christ to be True and Perfect God And this still is a plain evidence what they thought the Catholick Faith to be not only that Christ was True and Real God but that he was Truly and Really a Distinct Person from God the Father so distinct that if they should acknowledge him to be True God he would be a Second God which they thought contradicted the Faith of One God Well Though they would not own him to be True God yet they own him to be a distinct Person from the Father as distinct as God and a Creature are distinct Do the Catholicks now quarrel with the Arians that they have made a Substantial Person of the Son as in reason tâ—ey ought to have done had thâ—y not believed
Contradictions as he cannot require us to believe and consequently That whatever is plainly revealed implies no Contradiction how much soever it may be above our comprehension because God does require us to believe what he plainly reveals this had put an end to this Dispute and left the belief of the Trinity possible whatever difficulties we might apprehend in conceiving it But this great Zeal against believing Contradictions when applied to the belief of the Trinity is a very untoward Insinuation as if the Doctrine of the Trinity as commonly understood were clogg'd with Contradictions and that we must cast all such Contradictions which in the Socinian account is the Doctrine it self out of our Faith and therefore That whatever the Scripture says we must put no such sense on it as implies any Contradiction to our former knowledge This is an admirable Foundation for Considerations concerning the Trinity and what an admirable Superstructure he has rais'd on it we shall soon see I may possibly discourse this Point of Contradictions more at large elsewhere at present I shall only tell this Author That as self-evident as he thinks it this Proposition is false That it is impossible to believe what implies a Contradiction to our former knowledge and that God cannot require us to believe it I grant that all Logical Contradictions which are resolved into is and is not are impossible to be believed because they are impossible to be true and such is his Contradiction about the Whole and its Parts for to say That the Whole is not bigger than any of its Parts is to say That a Whole is a Whole and is not a Whole and that a Part is a Part and is not a Part. But contradictory Ideas may both be true and therefore both be believed and every man believes great numbers of them The Ideas of Heat and Cold White and Black Body and Spirit Extension and No Extension Eternity and Time to have A Beginning and to have No Beginning are contradictory Ideas and yet we believe them all that is we believe and know that there really are such things whose Natures are directly opposite and contrary to each other Now when there are such Contrarieties and Contradictions in Created Nature it may justly be thought very strange to true Considerers that our Natural Ideas should be made the adequate measures of Truth or Falshood of the Possibilities or Impossibilities of things that we must not believe what God reveals concerning himself if it contradicts any Natural Ideas And yet I challenge this Considerer and all the Socinian Sabellian Arian Fraternities to shew me any appearance of Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity but what are of this kind that is not Logical Contradictions but Contradictions to our other Natural Ideas And if our Natural Ideas of Created Nature contradict each other it would be wonderful indeed if the Divine Uncreated Nature should not contradict all our Natural Ideas Every thing we know of God is a direct Contradiction to all the Ideas we have of Creatures an Uncreated and a Created Nature an Infinite and a Finite Nature are direct Contradictions to each other Eternity without Succession Omnipresence without Extension Parts or Place a pure simple Act which is all in one without Composition an Omnipotent Thought which thinks all things into Being and into a Beautiful Order these and such like Ideas of God are direct Contradictions to all the Ideas we have of Creatures and can any Contradiction then to any Ideas of Created Nature be thought a reasonable Objection against believing any thing which God reveals to us concerning himself But of this more hereafter SECT IV. Concerning his State of the Question That One and the Same God is Three Different Persons THese are his Preliminaries Axioms Postulata's all in the strict demonstrative way but now he comes to apply all this more closely to the business in hand but then he very unfortunately stumbles at the Threshold The Proposition he proposes to examine by these Principles is this That One and the same God is Three Different Persons Where he met with this Proposition in these very Terms I know not I 'm sure there is no such Proposition in Scripture nor did I ever meet with it in any Catholick Writer It is very far from giving us a true and adequate Notion of the Catholick Faith concerning the Trinity it is of a doubtful signification and in the most obvious sense of these words which I fear will appear to have been intended by this Considerer is manifest Heresy For if by One and the same God he means That there is but One who is God and That this One and same God is Three different Persons it is the Heresy of Sabellius at least if he would have owned the Term different which inclines more to the signification of diversity than of mere distinction which savours of Arianism and more properly relates to Natures than to Persons We meet with different forms of speech in Catholick Writers concerning the Unity and Trinity in the Godhead all which must be reconciled to form a distinct and compleat Notion of the Trinity That Deus est Vnus Trinus God is One and Three is very Ancient and very Catholick That the Father is the One God in a peculiar and eminent sense is both the Language of Scripture and of the Church That each Person Father Son and Holy Ghost is by himself True and Perfect God is likewise the Doctrine both of the Holy Scriptures and the Catholick Fathers That the Trinity is One God That Father and Son are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnum One Divinity Christ himself teaches us That Father Son and Spirit are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One St. Iohn teaches us And nothing is more familiar both with the Greek and Latin Fathers than to call the Trinity One God and in consequence of this That One God is the Trinity though this they rather chose to express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Persons And whoever would give an account of the Catholick Faith of the Trinity must have respect to all these Notions and not content himself with any one of them as to make the best of it the Considerer here does when he only proposes to enquire How One and the same God is Three Persons But he ought to have enquired also in what sense each Person is by himself True and Perfect God and the Person of the Father in a peculiar and eminent sense the One God and to have framed his Notions of Unity and Distinction with an equal regard to all these Catholick Expositions which would have secured him from the Sabellian Heresy which now his Words are very guilty of whatever He himself be But let us now proceed to his Examination of these Terms God Vnity Identity Distinction and Number and Person As to the Notion of a Deity he confesses he has not a
fulâ— and adequate Idea of God but yet he knows which of those distinct Ideas he has in his mind are applicable to God and which are not But the present question does not conceâ—n the Idea of God which I hope we are all agreed in That God is a Being infinitely perfect But whether this Name God in the Question of the Trinity signifies only One who is God or One single Divine Person Or Whether this Name and the perfect Idea which belongs to it be applicable distinctly to Three to Father Son and Holy Ghost That each of them is True and Perfect God and neither of them is each other and all Three but One God This had been the true Explication of the Term God as applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity To have told us what is meant by God when this Name is peculiarly attributed to the Person of the Father when it is attributed to each Person distinctly and when it is jointly attributed to them all That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God â—t is certain all this must be resolved into the same One Divinity which is perfectly in each of them and inseparaâ—ly and indivisibly in them all And the true stating of his matter had been very proper and would have saved all his other Labour And therefore to save me some labour I will briefly tell him how the Catholick Fathers understood it which is the only possible way I know of reconciling these different Expressions When they tell us That the Person of the Father is in an eminent and peculiar manner the One God by this they understand That the Father alone is self-originated and from himself That the Whole Divinity and Godhead is originally his own which he received from no other Which is the first and most natural notion we have of God and of One God When they say That though the Father in this sense be the One God yet the Son also is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God they ascribe Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost upon account of the Eternal and Perfect Communication of the Divine Nature to them For he who has the True Divine Nature is True and Perfect God And therefore the Son who is eternally begotten of his Father of the Substance of his Father and is Consubstantial with him is True and Perfect God but God of God and the like may be said of the Holy Spirit who eternally proceeds from Father and Son When they teach That the Trinity is One God they mean by it That the same One Divinity does subsist whole and entire indivisibly and inseparably but yet distinctly in them all as I have already explained it So that the Unity of the Godhead gives an account of all these Expressions Why the Father is said to be the One God and yet that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God and Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God All this is taught in Scripture and is the Faith of the Catholick Church and I would never desire a better Proof of the Truth and Certainty of any Notion than that it takes in the whole Mystery and answers to every part of it which no other account I have ever yet met with can do SECT V. An Examination of his Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person c. AND now the Sabellian Scene opens apace If the Heresy of Sabellius was That there is but One who is God but One Divine Intelligent Person as well as One Divine Nature this our Considerer expresly owns and does his Endeavour to prove it absolutely impossible that it should be otherwise that is That the Catholick Faith asserted and defended by the Catholick Church against Sabellius is absolutely impossible To explain the word Person he tells us It signifies one of these two things either a particular Intelligent Being or an Office Character or some such complex Notion applicable to such a Being If you would know in which of these senses we must understand the word Person when we say there are Three Persons in the Trinity he tells us plainly That the simple Idea of God can be applied but to One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature or Principle And that all the Personal Distinction we can conceive in the Deity must be founded on some accessory Ideas extrinsecal to the Divine Nature a certain Combination of which Ideas makes up the second Notion signified by the word Person And for this he appeals to Natural Sentiments mistaking Heresy for Nature And if we fairly and impartially examine our own Thoughts upon this Subject we shall find That when we name God the Father we conceive the Idea of God so far as we are capable of conceiving it as acting so and so under such respects and relations and when we name God the Son we conceive nothing else but the same Idea of God over again under different relations and so likewise of the Holy Ghost Noetus Praxeas or Sabellius never taught their Heresy in more express words than these And what is to be done now Must we dispute this Point over again with the Considerer and confute a Heresy which has been so early so often and so constantly condemned by the Catholick Church For my part I can pretend to say nothing new which has not long since been much better said by the Catholick Fathers and therefore before we part I shall acquaint him with their Judgment in the Case and leave it to rest on their Authority and Reasons But it may not be amiss to mind this Considerer That he has all the Schoolmen as far as I have heard or had opportunity to consult them as well as the Catholick Fathers against him in his Notion of a Person for they all receive Boetius's Definition That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature Or it may be the Authority of Melancthon may be more considerable with him who tells us That the Church in this Article of the Trinity understands by Person an Individual Intelligent Incommunicable Substance And adds That the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there is but One Essence or Nature and Three Hypostases that is Three really subsisting not commentitious vanishing confused but distinct particular Intelligent Persons And the Censure he passes upon Servetus upon this score is very remarkable That Fanatical Fellow Servetus plaid with the word Person and contended That in Latin it anciently signified a Dress or Habit or the distinction of an Office as Râ—scius is sometimes said to act the part of Achilles sometimes of Vlysses Or the Person of a Consul is one thing and the Person of a Slave is another as Cicero speaks that it is a great thing to maintain the Character of the Person of a Prince in the Commonwealth And
found a Trinity but it is not a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature but a Trinity of extrinsecal accessory Ideas But since he has used some Art in palliating this Heresy it will be necessary to take off the Disguise The first step he makes to it is by seeming to own That there may be some greater Mystery and Obscurity in the Doctrine of the Trinity than that Account which he has given of it But if this Account says he of the Trinity be too easy and falls far short of those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture as I think it does and no other grounded upon any Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction can be true or consistent as I have before particularly proved then it necessarily follows That God must be One and Three in some way or manner not conceivable by human Vnderstanding Here he thinks he has found a safe Retreat He asserts and proves as he would have us believe from all the Notions of Distinction and Unity which our minds can frame That God is and can be One in no other Notion than of One single Person in the first and proper sense of a Person for an Intelligent Person and that God neither is nor can be Three in the sense of Three Proper Distinct Persons If you charge him with Sabellianism for this then he retreats to an obscure confused knowledge to such a way and manner of God's being One and Three as is not conceivable by human Understanding Well But will he allow us with this obscure and confused knowledge to believe the Holy Trinity to be Three Divine Proper Distinct Persons and One God in a way and manner unconceivable by Human Vnderstanding By no means This he has proved by all the Notions of Unity and Distinction cannot be true or consistent nor is it possible for us to believe what we do not understand the terms of or what contradicts our former knowledge and we are not bound to believe what is not possible to be believed nor can God in Justice or Goodness require such a Faith of us as we have already heard So that Sabellianism we may believe and must not believe any thing contrary to it and then we may believe that there is something more in it than we understand if we please And therefore we may observe That he is not concerned about any difficulties in the Notion of the Divine Unity which all Catholick Writers have been most concerned for how to reconcile the Unity of God with a Trinity of Divine Persons but that which troubles him most is the Distinction which the Catholick Fathers never disputed about but positively asserted in the most proper and real sense against the Sabellian Hereticks But he seems sensible as well he may be that the Sabellian Notion of Persons falls very short of those high Expressions of Distinction which are found in Scripture And here it is that he allows of an obscure and confused Knowledge When he has rejected a True Personal distinction all other kinds of distinction he can think of will not answer those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture and therefore provided you do not believe them distinct Persons you may believe if you please that there is some other unknown and unconceivable distinction between them This is plainly what he means by his obscure confused Knowledge by his general confused Faith by his general confused Notion of the Trinity and therefore he religiously keeps to that form of words That One and the same God is Three which must be understood in his Notion of One and the same God that is One single Person for all his Notions of Vnity and Distinction are on purpose designed to prove That One God can't be Three in a true and proper Notion of a Person and therefore he never so much as names that question How Three Divine Persons are One God Which can never be reconciled to a Sabellian Unity of a Single Person SECT VI. What it is the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity THE Considerer having laid the Foundations of Sabellianism in his Natural Sentiments proceeds to examine what the Doctrine of the Scripture is concerning this matter and to reconcile the Scripture to his Natural Sentiments though the more reasonable and safer way had been first to have learnt the Faith from Scripture and then to have corrected the Mistakes of his Natural Sentiments by Scripture I do not intend to enter into a long dispute with him here but shall only let the Reader see what it is he would prove and what he asserts for his whole business in short is to prove That the Sabellian Notion of the Unity of God or of One single Person and of Three Names Titles Characters extrinsecal Respects and Relations is the True Scriture Doctrine of the Trinity This he very freely tells us That the Sum of all that the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach concerning a Trinity is this That there is but One only God and what he means by One only God we have often heard the Author and Maker of all things But that One God ought to be acknowledge and adored by us under those Three different Titles or Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost Which Words are very remarkable He does not say That this One God is to be acknowledged and adored in Three who have the same One Divinity subsisting whole and perfect and distinctly in each of them which is the Catholick Faith But this One God is to be acknowledged and adored by us under these Three different Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the One God for neither of them is God but they are only the different Titles and Characters of the One God And though God when represented by different Characters is God still under each Character yet neither of the Characters is God no more than the Titles and Characters of a Man is the Man Now one might have expected that the Considerer should have proved That the Scripture-Notion of One God is That there is but One single Divine Person in the true and proper Notion of the word Person who is God and that these Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost do not in Scripture signify Three Distinct Real Persons but are only Three Different Titles and Characters of the same One Divine Person This indeed had effectually proved what he pretends to but he was too wise to attempt either The first he says nothing at all of but takes it for granted that he has demonstrated That by his Natural Notions of Unity and Distinction but had he not first demonstrated that nothing could be true and consistent and that God can require us to believe nothing which contradicts his Natural Notions he should have a little enquired what the Notion of Scripture is about this matter But taking it for granted that he
Person signifies an Intelligent Being but he has secured himself against this Imputation by an artificial addition some Intelligent Being acting in such or such a manner He will not allow Person to signify absolutely an Intelligent Being but an Intelligent Being with respect to some peculiar manner of acting and thus One single Person in the proper Notion of Person for an Intelligent Being may sustain Three Persons or Personal Characters with reâ—pect to extrinsecal Relations and the different manner of acting The whole Mystery and Sophistry of this is That God who is One single Person is upon different accounts sometimes called the Father sometimes the Sâ—n and sometimes the Holy Ghost and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost have a Personal signification each of these Names signify Person in a proper sense that is the Person of God but all of them separately and together signify but One and the same single Person for they are all of them attributed to God and God is but One or One Person though this One proper Person may sustain Three figurative Persons or Personal Characters This is plain dealing and this is his Answer to his first Hard Saying That God is One and Three the same God but Three different Hypostases or Persons That God is One and the same single Person under Three Personal Characters which may be called Three Persons because each of them signifies the True and Proper Person of God And here we see in what sense these Gentlemen allow That each Person is Substance is Mind and Spirit and yet that God is but One Substance One Mind and Spirit viz. in the very same sense that this Author affirms that God is but One single Person and yet that the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person and for the same reason that they decry and abhor Three Substances Three distinct Minds and Spirits in the Godhead though affirmed to be indivisibly and inseparably One Infinite Substance Mind and Spirit for the same reason they reject Three Intelligent Substantial Persons though our Modern Sabellians have been more cautious generally than this Considerer not to own it in express words Now as for these Terms of Three Substances and Three Minds there may be good reason to let them alone tho when rightly explained no reason to condemn them of Heresy but we must insist on Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Substantial Persons Each of which is Mind and Substance and One is not the Other If they disown this as the Considerer does they are downright Sabellians if they own it we have no farther Dispute about this matter Let us now consider his other Hard Saying That One of these Three Hypâ—stases or Persâ—ns should be both God and Man Now the Hardness of this Saying is not That it is hard to prove from Scripture that so it is or that it is hard to conceive how God and Man can be united which is all that he touches on But it is and always will be a Hard Saying to the Considerer upon another account that is To reconcile it with a Trinity of One proper single Person and Three Personal Characters The Doctrine of the Incarnation is this That the Eternal Son of God became True and Perfect Man by taking the Human Nature into a Personal Union to himself That the Son only became Man not the Father nor the Holy Ghost That two perfect distinct Natures the Divine and Human Nature were without Confusion united in the One Person of Christ and that this One Person is the Eternal Word and Son of God Now if there be but One single Person in the Godhead and Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Personal Characters of this One single Person How can the Son be Incarnate and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost It is only a Person that can be Incarnate for a Personal Character can't be Incarnate without the Person and if there be but One single Person and this same One Person is Father Son and Holy Ghost it is impossible that that Person who is the Son should be Incarnate but the Person who is the Father and the Holy Ghost must be Incarnate also because the same Person who is the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost The short Question is this Whether a True Proper Divine Person was Incarnate in the Incarnation of Christ If not then Christ was not a Divine Person how Divine soever he might be upon other accounts the Divine Nature did not persâ—nally subsist in him he was not personally True and Perfect God and then the Person of Christ was no more than a Man whatever Divine Influences he might receive from God But if the Divine Nature were truly and properly Incarnate in the Person of Christ then if there be but One single Divine Person in the Godhead but One Divine Nature in the sense of One single Person then the whole Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost which are but One True and Proper Person was Incarnate in Christ. This is the true difficulty and he is so wise as to take no notice of it It does not appear to me that he believes one word concerning the Incarnation of God or of a True Divine Person he says He that is in Scripture called the Son of God did appear in the likeness of men He certainly was a True Man but that is not our present dispute Was he in his own Person True and Perfect God Was he a Human Person or the Person of the Son of God appearing in Human Nature He was he says in the Form of God before he took the Nature of Man upon him This sounds well but why does he not speak out and tell us what this Form of God is Whether the True Divine Nature subsisting in him a True Divine Person Well But God did suffer himself to be worshipped and adored in and by the Man Christ Iesus the least that can be inferred from which is That God was more immediately and peculiarly present in Christ than ever he was said to have been any where else as in the Heavens the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims in Prophets and Holy Men who spake as they were moved by the Spirit Now all this might have been spared would he but have said That the Person Iesus Christ was worshipped with Divine Honours as being in his own Person True and Perfect God as well as Man and without saying this he says nothing to prove that Christ is the Son of God Incarnate To say That God did suffer himself to be worshipped in and by the Man Christ Iesus as he was worshipped in the Heavens in the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims for that must be the force of the Comparison does no more prove Christ to be God than it proves the Heavens the Iewish Temple and the Cherubims to be God It may prove a more perfect symbolical Presence of God in Christ which he calls the Fulness
as he represents it but the Personal Union of the Divine Nature of Christ to Human Nature He was not only as conscious of all the Divine Perfections in himself as a man is conscious of his own thoughts which yet by the way is absolutely impossible without being True and Perfect God in his own Person but he knew himself to be God the Eternal Son of God not the same Person with his Father but One with him Were a man thus regularly and constantly Inspired he would know that he was thus Inspired and he would also know that these Divine Perfections are not in himself not seated in his own Human Person nor under the Conduct of his own Will as his own Natural Powers are and therefore must know himself to be a mere Man still not God-Man So that this constant and regular Inspiration this uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity which is all he allows in this matter cannot make any Person God-Man This Inspiration is not a subsisting Person is not the Person of the Son of God is not Incarnate by its Union to Man no more than it is Incarnate in other Prophets The Man is the Person and therefore a mere Creature still tho never so Divinely Inspired This is such an Incarnation as Socinians themselves own in as high expressions as the Considerer can invent Cerinthus owned something more That Christ who descended on Iesus at his Baptism was a Divine Person not a mere Inspiration and rested on him and was most intimately united to him till his Crucifixion That Sect of the Noetians and Sabellians who were called Patripassians for they do not seem by the accounts we have of them to have been all of that mind did acknowledge the Incarnation of God in a true and proper sense as the Catholick Church did the Incarnation of Christ But then their Trinity being but One proper single Divine Person distinguished by Three Names or Personal Characters which is the express Doctrine of the Considerer their whole Trinity was Incarnate suffered and died in the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ the Father as well as the Son as it must of necessity be if there be but One Divine Person who is Father Son and Holy Ghost and if this One Person is in a true and proper sense Incarnate But this the Catholick Church abhorred and condemned under the name of the Patripassian Heresy Others of them were Sabellians in the Doctrine of the Trinity but Photinians or Samosatenians that is Socinians as to the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Athanasius often intimates And if I understand him this is the Considerer's way who believes a Trinity in One single Person and an Inspired Man for a God Incarnate And thus we have lost the Trinity and Incarnation and must part with every thing which is peculiar and essential to Christianity with them And now one would wonder after all this what he has to say more about the Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation and yet this is his next Enquiry What the Scriptures necessarily oblige us to believe in this Point that is concerning the Trinity and Incarnation Though he has been careful all along never to use this term Incarnation as being sensible that all he said about God-Man would not reach the Catholick Notion of Incarnation When I met with this Enquiry I was in hope that there was something behind to unsay all that he had hitherto said for if what he has already said be true it is certain the Scripture requires us to believe nothing about them But upon Examination I found that the Question was fallaciously stated and the true meaning of it was What the Scriptures oblige us to believe instead of what has hitherto passed for the true Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation I shall not dispute this Point with him now to shew what he means will be Confutation enough We must not he says look upon the Doctrine of the Trinity as a nice abstracted Speculation designed for the exercise of our Vnderstandings but as a plainer Revelation of God's Love and Good Will towards men and a greater Motive and Incitement to Piety than ever we had before this Doctrine was delivered This we grant That the Christian Faith is not designed merely for Speculation but for Practice but yet all the Doctrines of Faith are matters of Speculation and the Doctrine it self must be believed in order to Practice or else the Revelation of it is of no use at all The Question then is Whether we must not believe the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Or how much we must believe of them Must we not believe That God has in a true and proper sense an Eternal and Only-begotten Son begotten from Eternity of his own Substance his True Perfect Living Subsisting Image Must we not believe That this Eternal Son of God did in a true proper Notion become Man by uniting Human Nature to his own Person and that in Human Nature he suffered and died for the Redemption of Mankind Truly No if I understand him All this is a nice abstracted Speculation and a very perplexing exercise of our Vnderstandings and we are bound to understand no more by God's giving his own Son to dye for us but his Love and Gâ—od Will to Mankind as it is a great Motive and Excitement to Piety But how can we learn God's Love and Good Will to Mankind from this Doctrine if it be not true if God have no Eternal Son and therefore did not give his Eternal Son to become Man and to suffer and dye for us The Gospel proves the great Love of God to Sinners by the Incarnation Death and Sufferings of his Son that if we do not believe this Doctrine strictly and literally true we lose the Gospel Proof of God's Love to Sinners and of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Death and Sacrifice to expiate our sins and of the Power of his Intercession as the Eternal Only-begotten and Well-beloved Son of God But our Considerer will not allow this These Titles and Relations must be chiefly câ—nsidered with reference to the great Work of Man's Salvation But must they not be considered as Three distinct proper Persons in the Unity of the Godhead who have their distinct Parts and Offices in the Redemption of Mankind No but distinct Relations and Offices of One and the same single Divine Person who is the One Supreme God and is All in One Father Son and Holy Ghâ—st Saviour Mediator Comforter But how then can these Titles and Relations signify an Eternal Distinction in the Godhead an Eternal Fâ—tâ—â—r an Eternal Son and an Eâ—ernal Spirit when thâ—se Offices relating only to Man's Salvation were not Eternal This he resolves into the Eternal Purpose and Decree of God to redeem Mankind by the Death and constant Mediation of a Man chosen and enabled for this work by the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him And in consideration of
his Passion and Intercession to impart such Gifts Graces and Spiritual Assistances as would be sufficient to render this Redemption effectual to the saving of much people So that God decreed from Eternity upon his Foreknowledge of Man's Fall that in order to redeem Man he would take upon himself the Distinctions and Offices of Father Son and Holy Ghost Saviour Mediator and Comforter in time and this is all the Eternal Distinction in the Godhead Well But it seems God did not decree from Eternity to redeem Man by his own Son but by a Man chosen and enabled for this Work by the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him that is as we have already heard by an Inspired and Deified Man not by a God Incarnate It is the Man who is the Saviour and Redeemer though he be enabled to this work by the Fulness of the Godhead or a constant regular Inspiration This is downright Socinianism the Catholick Faith is That it is the Son of God who redeems us though he redeems us in Human Nature But if God redeems us by a Man however he be enabled by a Divine Power Why is he said to give his Son for us For this Divine Power is not a Person and therefore no Son nor is the Man his own and only begotten Son Now this would be a difficulty indeed were we to understand God's giving his own Son for us in a proper literal sense but this is nothing but Figure and Representation if we believe the Considerer His words are these Thus when God is pleased to represent his Love to Mankind in the highest Image of Nature that of a Father sacrificing an only-begotten Son the exact Transcript and Resemblance of himself perfectly innocent and obedient to his Will in all things we are to believe that God did thus sacrifice his Son as he assures us he did No but that by the Sufferings and Death of Christ God has given greater Proof of his Love towards us than any man is capable of doing to another and that such an action of an Earthly Parent suggests the nearest and likest Conception we can possibly frame of what our Heavenly Father hath done for us though at the same time we must acknowledge it comes infinitely short of expressing the Riches and Fulness of his Mercy and Loving kindness It does so indeed To believe that God has actually given his own Eternal and Only-begotten Son for us as the Scripture assures us he has is a much nearer and truer Conception of what God has done for us and infinitely exceeds all earthly comparisons Abraham's offering his Son Isaac at God's Command was an Image and Figure but a Typical Figure of it but it was a Type without an Antitype if Christ was not as truly and properly the Son of God as Isaac was the Son of Abraham But if we will believe the Considerer the Scripture does not oblige us to believe this if we do but believe That God is as good to us as if he had sacrificed his only Son for us we need not believe That he did sacrifice his Son I have no Patience to proceed any further if this be true there is an end of the Faith and Hope of Christians CHAP. III. A Brief Account of the Sabellian Heresy and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it THE Considerer has given us the most Compleat and Artificial Scheme of Sabellianism that I have yet met with aâ—d has very fairly and openly confessed his Design to prove That One God must signify that there is but One who is God but One single Divine Person in the proper Notion of a Person as it signifies an Intelligent Being I have endeavoured to shew him his Mistake and what it is that has mis-led him and how hopeless an Attempt it is to reconcile his Hypothesis with the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation This is so bold an Attempt openly to assert and defend a Heresy which has been constantly condemned by the Catholick Church since its first appearance that I am apt to hope he does not believe his Hypothesis to be Sabellianism or that Heresy which now is best known by that name though Sabellius was not the first Author of it And therefore I will shew him what Sabellianism is and how the Fathers opposed it There were Two Points in dispute between them and the Catholick Christians First Concerning the Personality of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Secondly Concerning the Unity of God Whether it were the Unity of One Person as they pretended That we may rightly understand this matter we must distinguish between the several kinds of Sabellianism because the Arguments and Answers of the Fathers are sometimes adapted to one and sometimes to another Notion of it That Father Son and Holy Ghost were but One Person was asserted by them all but explained very differently and that altered the state of the Question and required different Answers 1. As first They made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three Names Appearances or Offices of the same Person as I observed before And then the state of the Question was not Whether the Son was a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person in as true and proper a sense as the Father was a Person For this they owned by making Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Names of the same Person whereas it is impossible they should be the same Person if the Son were not a Person nor the Holy Ghost a Person If the Son be the same Person with the Father the Son must be a Person for no Person can't be the same Person Which is the same Argument to prove that these Hereticks owned Christ to be a True and Real Person that Novatianus used as I observed before to prove that they owned Christ to be true and perfect God because they made him the same with the Father who is true and perfect God and a true and real and substantial Person And if he be the very same with the Father he must be the same we acknowledge the Father to be viz. a true and real Person and perfect God The Dispute then which the Catholick Fathers had with these Hereticks with respect to this Notion That Father Son and Holy Ghost were the very same Person was not Whether the Son was a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person but Whether the Son and Holy Ghost were truly and really distinct Persons from the Father as the Catholick Church always believed or Whether they were the same Person distinguished only by Three Names Now when the Fathers asserted not only the Personality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which this Notion did not oppose but the real distinction of Persons That the Son was a Person but not the same Person with the Father they must ascribe the same kind of Personality to the Son which they do to the Father That the Son is as truly and really a Person as the
Father is though not the same Person as truly a Person as God would be were there but One Person in the Godhead as these Hereticks affirmed For according to all the Rules of Disputation we must take Words in the sense of those whom we oppose for otherwise it is a mere wrangle about Words without opposing one another And therefore since the Sabellians by Person understood such a Person as every single Person is for they made Father Son and Holy Ghost but Three different Names of the same single individual Person nothing could oppose or confute them but to prove That Father and Son and Holy Ghost are Three distinct Persons in the same Notion of a Person which belongs to every single individual Person as far as mere Personality is concerned For to prove them Three in any other sense whether Three Modes or Three Powers or Three Parts of the same One single Person is what they would have and allow them to be but One Person and they will dispute no further nay will give you leave to call Three Modes or Three Names or Three Parts of the same One Person Three Persons if you please But for the clearer understanding of this matter we must consider by what Arguments the Ancient Writers opposed this Heresy Tertullian in opposition to Praxeas reduces this to a short Question Whether God have any Son and who he is and how he is his Son For if God have a Son the Son must be as true and real a Person as the Father and Father and Son must be Two distinct Persons for the same Person can't be both Father and Son to himself the very Names of Father and Son signify that one is of the other and we must understand things to be what they are called whether Father or Son which can no more be the same than Night and Day with respect to these different Relations The Father makes the Son and the Son makes the Father and those who receive these Relations from each other can never be these Relations to themselves that the Father should make himself a Son to himself or the Son make himself a Father to himself This Order God has instituted in all other Beings and he observes it himself A Father must of necessity have a Son to be a Father and a Son must have a Father that he may be a Son but to have and to be are two things as for instance for a man to be a Husband signifies that he has a Wife not that he is a Wife to himself and thus to be a Father signifies to have a Son not to be a Son to himself in such Relations we must be one and have another that to be both is to be neither because we can have neither If I be Father and Son to my self I am no Father because I have no Son who makes a Father but am Son my self and I am no Son because I have no Father who makes the Son but am Son my self and thus while they make Father and Son one and the same Person they destroy the Notion both of Father and Son Now would any man have argued at this rate who did not believe Father and Son to be real and Substantial Persons and as distinct from each other as a human Father and Son are for if they be not all this reasoning from the distinct Relations of Father and Son which require a real distinction of Persons is quite lost And whether this Argument be good or no which is not the present Enquiry it is certain that whoever uses it if he understands himself must believe That Father and Son signify as true and real Relations and as real and distinct Persons in the Godhead as they do in human Nature The like may be said of that other Argument against the Father and the Son being One and the same Person That then the same Person must in order of Nature be both before and after himself for he who begets must always in order of Nature though not of Time in an Eternal Generation be before him who is begotten by him That as Father he is before himself as Son as Son he is after himself as Father which had been Iudicrous trifling if they had not believed a real substantial Generation of the Person and consequently that the Son is a real substantial Person For this Argument will not hold in the Generation of Modes and Postures or in one part of the Deity generating another Thus to prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son they urge all those Texts in which the Father speaks to or of the Son and the Son speaks to or of the Father which are so many and so well known that I need not transcribe them And Tertullian lays it down as a certain Rule That he who speaks and he to whom he speaks and he who is spoken of cannot be one and the same Person for this is such perverseness and deceit as does not become God that when he himself is the Person to whom he speaks he should speak in such a manner as if he directed his speech to another and did not speak to himself And therefore when the Father says Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased When Christ tells us That God is his Father That he came forth from the Father and came into the world and again leaves the world and goes to the Father When he says I and my Father and I will pray the Father and he shall send you Another Comforter I and He and Another must signify Three as Real and Distinct Persons as these words signify in common speech Thus they prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son from those Texts which tell us That the Father sends the Son and the Son is sent That the Father anoints and the Son is anointed That the Father gives Commands and the Son receives them and doth the Will of his Father That the Father knows the Son and the Son the Father That he sees all that the Father doth and can do all that he sees the Father do For there must be distinct Subjects for such different Acts the same Person with respect to himself can't with any propriety of speech be said to send and to be sent to anoint and to be anointed to command and to obey to come forth from himself and to come into the world and to leave the world and go to himself And therefore he who sends and he who is sent c. must be Two Nay it is well observed by these Fathers That Christ himself expresly teaches us that He and his Father with respect to the distinction of Persons are Two so Two as to make a Legal Testimony of Two Witnesses 8. Iohn 13 18. When the Pharisees objected against him That he bore Record of himself and therefore his Record was not true He answers And
yet if I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone but I and my Father which sent me It is also written in your law That the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and my Father that sent me beareth witness of me This is as express as words can make it If Father and Son were but Oâ—e single Person Christ could not have said I am not alone but I and my Father which sent me for one single Person is in this sense alone how many Names soever he has and if he and his Father are not Two distinct Persons they are not Two Legal Witnesses as Two distinct men are These and such like Arguments we may find in all the Ancient Writers who have engaged in this Controversy and from hence we learn not only what they thought of the distinction of Persons between Father and Son but what kind of Person they believed the Son to be such a Person as has a Personal Knowledge and Will and Power who is capable of being sent of receiving and executing Commands and has all this as distinctly in himself as he is a distinct Person The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father but each of them know by their own Personal Knowledge the Father wills and the Son wills and wills all the same with the Father but each of them wills by his own Personal Will the Father works and the Son works and they inseparably do the same things but each of them work by their own Personal Power Knowledge and Will and Power of acting is essential to the Notion of a Person and therefore every distinct Person must have a distinct Personal Knowledge and Will and Power and those must acknowledge this who prove the distinction of Persons from distinct Personal Acts as all these Fathers did This is all we ask when we assert a distinction of Persons in the Trinity and this we must insist on or deny a Trinity for if there are not Three who have all the same distinct Personal Acts there cannot be Three distinct compleat Persons for Personal Acts shew a Person and distinct Personal Acts prove distinct Persons and in this sense as all these Arguments prove the Ancient Fathers owned a distinction of Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead Their distinction between Deus invisibilis and Deus visibilis the invisible and visible God whereby they proved the real distinction between God the Father and God the Son is an undeniable Proof of their Opinion in this matter for I urge it no farther It was the received Opinion as far as I can find of all the Ancient Fathers till St. Austin That God the Father never appeared in any visible Representation of himself for he tells Moses No man can see my face and live And St. Iohn assures us No man hath seen God at any time but the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him And yet in the Old Testament we frequently read of God's appearing to men which they therefore expound of God the Son and that his Appearance in a visible Form was a Preludium to his Incarnation This we may see largely proved by Tertullian and St. Hilary and observed by St. Athanasius and the plain consequence they draw from it is That this invisible and visible God cannot be one and the same Person and the consequence is so selâ—-evident that it needs no Proof but it evidently proves what a real substantial as well as distinct Person they thought the Son who could visibly appear while the Father remained invisible for as a visible and invisible God can't be the same Person so a visible God must be a real substantial Person And though St. Austin was of opinion That those Three Men which appeared to Abraham were the Three Persons of the Sacred Trinity and thereby rejected the distinction of the invisible and visible God by attributing a visible Appearance to God the Father which none of the Ancients had done before him yet by these Three distinct Appearances he confirmed the real distinction of the Divine Persons who were as distinct Persons as they appeared to be and therefore as distinct as Three Human Persons for they appeared as Three distinct men And therefore he observes That whereas Two of these Three went to Lot in Sodom Lot speaks to them as to One 19. Gen. 18. And Lot said unto them Oh not so my Lord And justifies Lot in this That though they were two yet they were equal and he would not divide the Father and Son and urges this against the Sabellians who made Father and Son One Person I do not justify St. Austin in this because I doubt whether the Argument be good but by this we may understand St. Austin's Judgment of the real distinction of Persons And to the same purpose the Voice from Heaven at our Saviour's Baptism This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Descent of the Holy Spirit like a Dove and lighting upon him is urged by the Ancient Fathers to prove a real Trinity of Divine Persons The Voice from the Father in Heaven the Son on earth and the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove which being Three distinct Manifestations and all at a time must represent the Father who spoke from Heaven the Son who was on Earth and the Holy Ghost who descended like a Dove to be Three distinct Persons not One single Person which cannot speak of himself in the Third Person nor descend on himself in a distinct visible Appearance The Sabellians being unable to maintain this Point which is so manifestly absurd and so irreconcilable with all the forms of speech used in Scripture concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost found it necessary to allow some distinction between them but yet were so afraid of Tritheism that they kept religiously to their main Point that One God was but One Person and therefore would admit of no other distinction but what was reconcilable with the Unity of a Person 2. Hence secondly some of them taught That the Son is distinguished from the Father not as one Person is distinguished from another but as a man's Word or Wisdom which is in his Heart and Soul may be distinguished from himself that is That the Son is not a living substantial subsisting Word no more than the Word of a Man which is only the motion of a living subsisting heart but does not live and subsist it self but being spoke it vanishes and being often repeated never continues and therefore is not another Man nor Man of Man nor with Man as the Divine Word is true and perfect God God of God and God with God and therefore they make God and his Word but One Person as Man and his Word is One Man In answer to this St. Athanasius urges all those Texts which prove Christ and God the Father to be Two
distinct Persons for if they be Two Persons then the Son is as True and Real a Person as the Father is This I have already taken notice of and need not now repeat it only I cannot but observe what Athanasius tells us of these Hereticks That when they were convinced by the plain Evidence of Scripture that God the Father and Christ who called himself the Son of God were Two Persons they then took Courage and owned Christ to be a Person but not a Divine Person as the Eternal Word of God but only a Human Person as he was Man But Athanasius tells them That this was neither better nor worse than the Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus or what we now call Socinianism to make Christ a mere Man for he can be no more if the Divine Word which St. Iohn tells us was Incarnate be not the Person If the Word Incarnate be the Person then Christ is God-Man if the Man be the Person he can be no more than a Man This Athanasius confutes at large and proves That what Christ says of himself cannot belong to a mere Man But that which I would observe is this That both these Hereticks who denied the Divine Word to be a Person and Athanasius and the other Catholick Fathers who affirmed him to be a Person agreed very well in the Notion of a Person viz. That a Person is a distinct intelligent Being who does really and actually subsist and subsists distinctly from all other intelligent Beings That the Divine Word in the Godhead is such a Person as a Man is in Human Nature Such a Person these Hereticks would allow Christ to be considered as a Man and such a Person Athanasius affirms Christ to be considered as God or the Divine Word for otherwise they wrangle about words and do not oppose each other The Fathers proved That Christ was a Person and a distinct Person from the Father by those Texts which represent him as speaking to and of his Father and which attribute many Personal Acts to him The Sabellians could not deny but that these were Personal Acts and did prove Christ to be a real subsisting Person but then would not allow the Word to be the Person but only the Man Christ Jesus to be the Person The Fathers on the other hand allow their Notion of a Person which is the only true intelligible Notion but prove That the Divine Word which was Incarnate not merely the Man Christ Jesus was this Person and therefore that this Divine Word is a real substantial subsisting Word not like the Word of a man which is a transient Act but has no subsistence of its own The Sabellians would have allowed a Trinity of Persons in any other Notion of a Person than as a Person signifies a real subsisting intelligent Being but the Catholick Fathers would own no other Notion of Person but this and taught that there were Three Persons in the Trinity in the same sense in which the Sabellians denied there were Three Persons Three such Persons as they affirmed there was but One that the Son and Holy Ghost were Divine Persons in the same sense that the Sabellians owned the Father to be a Person that is Three such Persons as they called Three Gods The reason of this I 'm sure is not to be answered That if the Catholick Fathers understood what they did when they opposed the Sabellians who made the Divine Word only to be the Word of a Divine Person but not a Divine Person himself they must assert the Divine Word in a strict and proper sense to be a Divine Person and not merely the transient Word of a Person which has no subsistence which is a more sensible Argument than all the Criticisms about Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet they express themselves so fully and clearly in this matter that there is no need of guâ—ssing at their meaning Tertullian reduces this Dispute to this one single Question which is the true state of it whether the Son and Word of God considered as distinct from God the Father be a Substance and has a Subsistence of his own Which he expresly affirms and offers his reasons for the Proof of it This he tells us is necessary to make the Word a real Being and Person Res Persona that he have a real Substance and a Substance of his own proper to himself per Substantioe proprietatem without which he cannot be Second to God nor the Father and the Son God and his Word be Two Now for the Son and the Word to be a substantial Being per proprietatem Substantioe by a Substance proper to himself as distinguished from God the Father must signify That the Personal Substance of the Son is not the same but a distinct Substance from the Personal Substance of God the Father so distinct that the Father and Son are Two Persons in the same sense and notion that the Father is One Person In answer to their Objection That the Word of God was but like the Word of a Man which was nothing else but a Voice and Sound a Vibration of the Air which conveyed some Notions to the Mind but was it self Emptiness and Nothing without any Substance of its own he answers That God himself is the most real and perfect Substance and therefore whatever proceeds from or is begotten of his Substance must be a real substantial Being much less can the Son and Word who gave Being to all other Substances be an insubstantial Nothing himself For tho there may be equivocal Causes which may produce things of a different nature from themselves yet nothing can produce nothing He argues farther That this Word is called the Son of God and God The Word was with God and the Word was God And that Word which is the Son of God and himself God can't be an insubstantial Nothing unless God himself be Nothing If God begets a Son he must be a substantial Person as all Creature-Sons are much more the Son of God And such a Son who is himself God must have all the Reality and Perfections which belong to the Notion of God But he argues farther from what St. Paul tells us That he was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God In Effigie in the Image of God Now says he in what Image of God was he Certainly in another but not in none The meaning of which is That every Person as a Person has his own Personal Image but thus he was not the Personal Image of the Father because he was not the same Person with the Father but yet if he was the Image of God he must be his True Substantial though not his Personal Image the true living Image of his Father's Person but not his Person He seems indeed in what follows to have entertained too gross and corporeal imaginations of the Substance and Image of God but this was his own Mistake and
have distinct Understandings Wills and Powers of Action for no other Beings are capable of sending or being sent and Three such distinct Persons each of which is complete and perfect God is the Trinity asserted by the Catholick Fathers in contradiction to the Heresy of Sabellius But there is one very good Rule of Athanasius which is worth observing in this Controversy That we must not imagine to find the Unity of the Godhead by denying Three but we must find this Unity or Monade in Three The Sabellians took the first way to secure the Catholick Faith of One God they denied Three real distinct substantial Persons in the Godhead but the Catholick Faith owns Three real distinct substantial divine Persons and teaches that these Three are One God not with such an Unity as belongs to One Person but as Three Persons are One God which should be a warning to some late Writers who think they cannot sufficiently defend the Unity of God without opposing a real and substantial Trinity which is to oppose the ancient Catholick Faith To conclude this Chapter the result of the whole in short is this That in opposition to the Noetians who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three Names of the same One Divine Person whom we call God the Catholick Fathers asserted that they were Three distinct Persons not the same Person under Three Names or Three Appearances in opposition to those Sabellians who denied the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but made the Son like the Word in the mind or heart of man which had no substantial permanent Subsistence of its own and the Holy Ghost in like manner to be a transient efflux of Power from God so that God the Father was the only subsisting Person and the One God but the Son and the Holy Ghost the insubstantial transient Word and Power of God These ancient Fathers in like manner asserted the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that they were real distinct subsisting Persons as true and perfect Persons as the Father himself is in opposition to those Sabellians who asserted a compound Deity and made a Trinity of Parts instead of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead they unanimously rejected all composition in the Deity and asserted each Person distinctly by himself not to be a part of God but true and perfect God Now had these Fathers asserted nothing positively concerning the Three Divine Persons but only rejected these Noetian and Sabellian Heresies it had been evidence enough what their Faith was concerning the Ever-blessed Trinity for remove these Heresies and all such as are manifestly the same however they may differ in words and there is nothing left for any man to believe concerning a Divine Trinity but the true Catholick Faith of Three real distinct substantial Divine Persons each of which is distinctly and by himself complete entire perfect God For if Father Son and Holy Ghost are not one and the same Person distinguisht only by Three Names according to their different Appearances and Operations nor one single Person with two personal Vertues and Powers called the Son and the Spirit like the word and emotion in a man's heart which is no person and has no subsistence of its own nor three parts of one compounded Deity as a man is compounded of Body Soul and Spirit then of necessity Father Son and Holy Ghost must be Three complete substantial subsisting Persons Thrâ—â— such Persons as the Sabellians would allow but One fâ—â—â—f they â—e not the same nor affections and motions of the â—ame nor parts of the same there is nothing left but to own them Three completely and perfectly subsisting Person If God be One not in the Sabellian â—otion of Singularity as One God signifies One single Person but Oâ—e in Three without parts or composition as the Father asserted against Sabellius then each Person must be by himself complete and perfect God for God cannot be One in Three Persons unless each Person be perfect God for unless this One God be perfect God in each Person he cannot be perfectly One in Three If the Unity of God be not the Unity of a Person it must be the Unity and Sameness of Nature and the inseparable Union of Persons and this is the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which the Catholick Fathers taught and which is the only thing they could reasonably teach when they had rejected the Sabellian Unity There is no medium that I know of in this Controversy concerning the Unity of God between the Unity of One single Person and that Oneness which results from the Unity and the Consubstantiality of Nature and inseparable Union of Persons and therefore if the first be Heresy the second must be the Catholick Faith and whatever Notions men advance against this is Sabellianism in its Principle and last result for if the Unity of God be not the Union of Three complete Divine Persons each of which is distinctly by himself perfect God it must be the Unity of One Divine Person which is the Sabellian Unity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost IN the last Chapter I have plainly shewn what Sabellianism is and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed and confuted it which is proof enough what they meant by Person when in opposition to Sabellius they taught that there were Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead not Three personal Characters and Relations which Sabellius owned but Three true and proper Persons each of whom is by himself true and perfect God But yet the Nicene Faith of the Homocusion or One Substance of Father and Son is so expounded by some as to countenance the Sabellian Heresy which all the Nicene Fathers condemned though one would think that should be an unanswerable Objection against it this has made it so absolutely necessary to the Vindication of the Catholick Faith and to compose some warm Disputes rightly to understand this matter that I shall carefully inquire what the Nicene Fathers meant by these terms of the Homoousion and One Substance which they have put into their Creed as the most express opposition to the Arian Heresy And we cannot long doubt of this if we consider the true state of the Arian Controversy There was no Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Personality of the Son they both condemned Sabellius and therefore One Substance when opposed to the Arians can't signify a Sabellian Unity The Arians and Sabellians both agreed in this That One God is but One Divine Person who is truly and properly God and that to assert Three Persons each of which is true and perfect God is to make Three Gods The Sabellians to avoid this Tritheism make Father Son and Holy Ghost but One Divine Person and in that sense but One God The Arians on the other hand allow Father and Son to be two real distinct
Persons but attribute true and perfect Divinity only to the Father and make the Son a Creature though the most excellent Creature made before the World and as like to God as any Creature can be and the Minister of God in making the World This Heresy was condemned by the first general Council assembled at Nice and if we would understand the Nicene Creed we must expound it in opposition to the Arian Heresy without running into the other Extreme of Sabellianism And therefore when we are taught to believe in One Lord Iesus Christ the Only begotten Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of very God begotten not made being of One Substance with the Father by whom all things were made Wemust understand a Son who is a distinct Person from his Father as the Arians allowed him to be but not a made or created Son as they taught but a Son by Nature begotten of his Father's substance and that not in Time but from all Eternity and therefore not a Creature but God by Nature true and perfect God as God of God begotten of God and therefore of One Substance with the Father not in the Sabellian sense as One Substance is One Person but as One Substance signifies the same Nature in opposition to the Arians who made him not only a distinct Person but of a different Nature like his Father but not the same not of the substance of his Father but a new created Substance made out of nothing as all other Creatures are The opposition of this Creed to the Arian Heresy is certainly the best way of expounding it and then we find nothing in it but the true ancient Catholick Faith of the real distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence But the present Inquiry is What is the true Notion of the Homousion or One Substance of Father and Son and besides that positive account the Fathers give us of it we may learn this from those false Glosses and Interpretations which they reject and those Rules they give for the expounding these words SECT I. The true Sense of the Homoousion from those Misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 1. FIrst then Let us consider what Misrepresentations were made of this disputed word Consubstantial by the Enemies of the Catholick Faith and what Answers the Fathers gave to such Objections St. Hilary mentions three in the beginning of his 4 th Book of the Trinity and I shall consider them in the Order in which he sets them down 1. The first is that this word Homoousion or Consubstantial is no better than Sabellianism that it makes the Father and the Son to be but One by One singular Substance which being Infinite extended it self into the Virgin 's Womb and taking a Body of her in that Body took the Name of Son and thus they say some former Bishops understood it and is therefore to be rejected as Heretical which as he adds is the first misrepresentation of the Homoousion Thus he observes in his Book de Synodis that the Fathers in the Council of Antioch which condemned Paulus Samosatenus did also reject the Homoousion because Paulus thereby understood the singularity of the Divine Nature and Substance which destroys the real personal distinction between Father and Son and adds that the Church though it retained the word Homoousion still rejects that sense of it as profane The Learned Dr. Bull notwithstanding St. Hilary's Authority can't believe that either Paulus or Sabellius did upon choice own the Homoousion but only put a forced and unnatural sense of it to favour their Heresies and seems to have very good reason on his side but that is not the present question How perversly soever Hereticks understood this word the Nicene Fathers rejected this sense as profane and heretical Now if One Substance does not signify One singular Substance in the Sabellian Notion of it which leaves only a Trinity of Names or Modes instead of a Trinity of Persons then Three consubstantial Persons must signisy Three substantial Persons who have the same Nature and Essence but not the same singular Substance And St. Basil tells us that this is the proper acceptation of the word Homoousion which is directly opposed to the Sabellian as well as to the Arian Heresy as it destroys the Identity of Hypostasis and gives us a complete and perfect Notion of distinct Persons for the same thing is not consubstantial to it self but to another that there must be another and another to make two that are consubstantial Another Objection against the Homoousion was this That to be consubstantial or of One Substance signifies the communion of Two in some other thing which is in order of Nature before them both as if there were some prior Substance or Matter of which they both did partake so as to have the whole Substance between them which makes them consubstantial or of one Substance both partaking of the same Being Nature or Substance which was before them both and therefore they rejected the Homoousion because it did not preserve the relation between the Son and the Father and made the Father later than that Substance or Matter which is common to him with the Son This also St. Hilary tells us the Church rejects and abominates for nothing can so much as in thought be before the Substance of the Father and the relation between Father and Son signifies to beget and to be begotten not to be both made of the same Substance A third Reason they assigned against this word Homoousion was this That to be Consubstantial or of One Substance in the strict and proper acceptation of these words signifies that the generation of the Son is by the division of the Father's Substance as if he were cut out of him and One Substance divided into Two Persons and so Father and Son are of One Substance as a part cut out of the whole is of the same nature with that from whence it is taken This was objected against the Homoousion in the time of the Nicene Council while this word was under debate which Socrates gives a more particular account of The reason those Bishops who refused to subscribe to the Nicene Faith gave against the Homoousion was this That that only can be said to be Consubstantial which is of another either by division or by efflux and emanation or by prolation or eruption by eruption as the branches sprout out of the root by efflux according to the manner of human generations by division as the same mass of Gold may be divided into two or three golden Cups but the Son is of the Father neither of these ways and therefore they rejected this Faith and ridiculed the Homoousion For this very reason Eusebius of Caesarea was for some time in suspense about the
Homoousion which he afterwards readily received when the Council had declared in what sense they understood it and rejected all corporeal passions all division and partition change and diminution of the Divine Essence which pure simple unbodied eternal unchangeable Mind is not capable of Now all that I shall observe at present is That this very Objection which was thought so formidable necessarily supposes that both they who made it and they who were so much concerned to answer it did acknowledge a substantial generation of the Son for this whole Dispute is downright Nonsense without it If God the Father in begetting his Son does not so communicate his own Nature and Substance to him as to make him a true substantial Son of the same Substance indeed but yet as distinct in Substance from the Father as he is in Person How ridiculous is all this Dispute how the Father communicates his own Nature to his Son for according to these men he does not communicate or propagate his own Nature and Substance at all there being but one singular solitary Divine Nature and Substance with a Trinity of Names Modes or Offices and therefore no danger of any division or partition of the Divine Substance The Dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the generation of the Son was this They both owned against the Sabellians that the Son is a real substantial subsisting Person but the Question was whence he had his Nature whether he was created out of Nothing and consequently had a beginning of Being as the Arians affirmed or was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father and so coeternal with his Father as the Nicene Council affirmed That the Substance of the Son was of the Substance of the Father God of God Light of Light Against this the Arians objected That the Son could not be of the Substance of the Father without the division of the Father's Substance which is impossible in an infinite uncreated Spirit as God is which Argument is only against a substantial generation The Nicene Fathers allow this Objection to be good as to corporeal generations but deny that it is thus as to the Eternal Generation of the Son of God for an Eternal Uncreated Immutable Mind if it can communicate its own Nature at all and we learn from Scripture that God has a Son must do it without division of parts for the Divine Nature and Substance has no parts and is capable of no division And it is very absurd to reason from corporeal Passions to the Affections and Operations of Spirits much more of an infinite eternal Spirit Had not the Arians understood the Catholick Fathers of the substantial Generation of the Son they had more wit than to urge an Argument to no purpose for where there is no communication of Substance it is certain there can be no division of it And had not the Catholick Fathers owned this substantial Generation they would have rejected the Argument with scorn as nothing to the purpose and not have distinguished between corporeal generations and the Generation of Eternal and Infinite Mind That though Bodies cannot communicate their own Nature and Substance without division yet an Eternal Mind can so that from these perverse Interpretations of the Homoousion which the Catholick Fathers rejected we may learn what they meant by it for if Father and Son are not Consubstantial in the sense of the Sabellians and Modalists that is that Father and Son are not One Person with Two Names nor One singular solitary Substance common to them both then the Father must be a substantial Father and the Son a substantial Son and these Two substantial Persons are Consubstantial as having the same One Divine Nature and Substance intirely perfectly and distinctly in themselves without any division diminution or separation of Substance by a complete and perfect Generation whereby the Father communicates his whole intire Nature to the Son without any change or alteration in himself SECT II. Some Rules for expounding the Homoousion and in what Sense the Fathers understood it SEcondly Let us now examine what account the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers give of the Homoousion and in what sense they understood it But before I tell you what they expresly say of this matter I shall observe by the way two or three Rules they give us for expounding the Homoousion which are of great use in this Enquiry 1. The first is To give the Homoousion the right place in our Creed as the Nicene Fathers have done They do not tell us abruptly in the first place That the Son is consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father They first tell us That Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God begotten of his Father that is of the Substance of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of Very God Begotten not made and then they add Of One Substance with the Father This St. Hilary lays great stress on and his Reason is very considerable because if in the first place we say Father and Son are consubstantial or of One Substance this is capable of an Heretical as well as Orthodox Sense as we have already heard for they may be One Substance in the Sabellian Notion as that signifies One Person or One by the Division or Partition of the same Substance of which each has a part for all these perverse Senses may be affix'd to it when this word Consubstantial or One Substance stands singly by it self or is put in the first place without any thing to limit or determine its signification And therefore a true Catholick Christian must not begin his Creed with saying That Father and Son are of One Substance but then he may safely say One Substance when he has first said The Father is unbegotten the Son is born and subsists of his Father like to his Father in all Perfections Honour and Nature not of nothing but born not unborn but coaeval not the Father but the Son of the Father not a Part of the Father but All that the Father is not the Author but the Image the Image of God begotten of God and born God not a Creature but God not Another God of a different Kind and Substance but One God as having the same Essence and Nature which differs in nothing from the Substance of the Father that God is One not in Person but Nature Father and Son having nothing unlike or of a different kind in them And after this we may safely add That Father and Son are One Substance and cannot deny it without Sin This is as plain as words can make it and needs no Comment but fixes and determines the Catholick Sense of the Homoousion For if we must acknowledge the Son to be consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father in no other sense than as a True and Real Son is consubstantial a Son not created out of Nothing but
begotten of his Fathers Substance the Son of God who in his own proper Person is true and perfect God not a part of God but all that God is not One God as One Person with the Father but as having the true Divine Nature distinctly in his own Person This is a Demonstration that the Nicene Consubstantiality is the Consubstantiality of Two real substantial Persons who have the same Nature distinctly subsisting in each of them 2 Another Rule for expounding the Homoousion is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are equipollent terms that to be of one Substance and to be in all things alike to each other signify the same thing I know the Fathers condemned the Arian Homoiousion for they asserted That the Son was like the Father in opposition to his being of the same Nature with the Father and therefore this was an imperfect likeness and resemblance or indeed no likeness at all for a created and uncreated Nature are at such an infinite distance as to have no true and real likeness to each other to be sure not such a likeness as there must be between a Son and a Father Nay sometimes they would not allow that likeness can be properly applied to two individual Natures of the same species as to two individual human Natures which are not like to each other but are the same But yet whether it was proper or improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be upon all accounts and every way perfectly alike was allowed to be very Orthodox and therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis approves several Oriental Creeds as very Orthodox though they left out the Homoousion because they in the most express terms confessed the perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Father and Son which they guarded with the utmost Caution against the perverse Interpretations both of the Sabellian and Arian Hereticks And he disputes at large That perfect similitude is a sameness and equality of Nature and calls God to witness that before he ever heard of those words Homoousion and Homoiousion he always thought that what is signified by both these words is the same that perfect likeness of Nature is the sameness of Nature for nothing can be perfectly alike which has not the same Nature And this he says he learnt from the Evangelists and Apostles before ever he heard of the Nicene Faith which he had not heard of till a little before he was banished for that Faith This observation is of great use as St. Hilary notes to confute Sabellianism and to fix the true sense of the Homoousion for if to be Consubstantial or of one Nature signifies a perfect likeness similitude and equality of Nature Consubstantiality must at least signify Two who are thus consubstantial as likeness similitude and equality does and these Two must have One and the same Nature not in the sense of Singularity and Sabellian Unity but of likeness and similitude that Father and Son are One Substance not as One Person is One with himself but as Two Persons are One by a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature which must be the true meaning of Consubstantial if Consubstantiality and likeness of Nature be the same 3. I observe farther That the Catholick Fathers did not make the Homoousion the Rule of Faith that whatever sense some critical Wits can put on it must therefore be owned for the Catholick Faith but they chose it as the most comprehensive word to comprize the true Catholick Faith and to detect the Frauds of Hereticks They taught no new Faith by this word but what the Catholick Church had always taught but secured the Faith by it against the shifts and evasions of Hâ—reticks This is the defence they made to the Arian Objection That it was an unscriptural word they confessed the word Homoousios was not to be found in Scripture but the Faith expressed by that word was Thus St. Austin answers Pascentius and tells us That Christ himself has taught us the Homoousion where he says I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and my Father are One and expounds this of the Unity Dignity and Equality of Nature And adds That it is not the word but the thing signified by that word which is so terrible to Hereticks and if they would dispute to purpose they must not reject the word but the doctrine it contains And thus Laurentius who presided in that Dispute gives judgment in this Controversy That the Homoousion was not the Name of the Christian Faith but signified the Equality of the Trinity and that though this word be not in Scripture yet the thing signified by it is true and we must believe honourably of the Unity lest we injure the Trinity We may find enough to this purpose in Athanasius De Decret Syn. Nic. and elsewhere of which more presently And therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis which he wrote to some Catholick Bishops who were very Orthodox in the Faith and yet doubted of this word Homoousion tells them That they are to consider what the Synod intended by that word and not reject the word unless they rejected the Faith taught by it and would profess those Arian Doctrines which the Council condemned in it This is the constant language of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers when the Dispute is concerning the use of this word which gives us this certain Rule for expounding the Homoousion that we must understand it in no other sense than what the Nicene Fathers intended by it for if we do we may acknowledge the Homoousion and yet deny the Nicene Faith What they taught by this word that we must own and what they rejected by it we must reject And though we may fancy that this word signifies more than what the Nicene Fathers understood by it as we have heard what perverse Senses the Hereticks fixt on it yet it being not a Scriptural but an Ecclesiastical word it must be expounded to that Sense and no other which placed it in the Creed SECT III What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion AND this brings me to a more particular Account of the Homoousion and what the Nicene Fathers understood by it Eusebius Pamphili who at first doubted about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the substance of the Father and consubstantial or of One Substance with him gives an account to his Coesareans of the Reasons which moved him afterwards to subscribe to that Form of Faith as appears by his Letter to them recorded in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History He tells them That he did not admit these words without due examination but when he found there was nothing meant by them but what was truly Catholick and Orthodox he complied for Peace sake For by the Son 's being of his Father's Substance they meant no more than
kind but as actually subsisting in Particulars which are distinguished from each other by their distinct Subsistence or by such other Properties and characteristical Marks as are peculiar to each of them and not common to the whole kind as the persons of Peter and Iames and Iohn though they have the same common Nature are yet distinguished from each other Now if the One Divine Nature be in this sense a common Nature that it is really and actually communicated by the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit and does distinctly subsist whole and entire and perfect in all Three Divine Persons it cannot be One singular solitary Nature which cannot subsist distinctly in Three for in perfect singularity there can be no distinction nor can One singular Nature be Three Subsistences when there is but One which subsists Athanasius or whoever was the Author of that Treatise of the common Essence of Father Son and Holy Ghost proves that all Three Persons have the same common Nature from the same Names and Attributes and Works Dominion and Power ascribed distinctly to them all and gives this account why though the Father be God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we must not say that there are Three Gods but One God in Three Persons because a common Nature has a common Name as he shews that all Mankind in Scripture are called one Man upon account of their common Nature and if this be allowable among men to unite all Mankind in one Name and to speak of them as one Man notwithstanding all that diversity which is between them in external form strength will affections opinions c. how much more reasonable is it to call the Three Divine Persons One God who are distinguished and separated from the whole Creation by One undivided Dignity One Kingdom One Power One Will and Energy And that we may not suspect that by One common Nature they meant One singular Substance and Nature common to Father and Son which it is impossible to form any Notion of St. Basil tells us what he meant by a common Nature such a Nature as has the same Notion and Definition that is which is common as a Genus or Species is common As for example If the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to his Suppositum or Substance be Light we must acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Essence and Substance of the Son to be Light also and whatever other Notion we form of the Being and Essence of the Father the same we must apply to the Son And herein he places the Unity of the Godhead or the One Divinity that though the Divine Persons differ in Number and in their peculiar Characters yet that Divine Nature which subsists distinctly in each of them has but one and the same Notion and Definition and therefore is but one and the same in all If this be not a specifick Sameness and Unity all our Logicks deceive us I 'm sure the Unity of an Individuum or singular Nature was never thought to consist in a common Notion or Definition of its Nature and yet this is the account which the Fathers unanimously give of the One common Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost No man who understands any thing of this Controversy can be ignorant of that famous Dispute de Ingenito Genito concerning the Vnbegotten and the begotten Nature By this Sophism the Arians endeavoured to prove That the Son could not be Homoousios consubstantial or of the same Nature with the Father because an Unbegotten Nature cannot be the same with a Begotten Nature Now had the Catholick Fathers believed the singularity of the Divine Nature in the modern Notion of it this Objection had been unanswerable for it is absolutely impossible that the same singular Nature should be both begotten and unbegotten as much as it is that the same single Person should be both begotten and unbegotten I desire to know how any Sabellianist who acknowledges but One singular solitary Substance of the Deity would answer this Objection I know no possible way they have but to deny that the Divine Nature of the Son is begotten that though the Son be begotten his Divine Nature is not begotten but only his Personality or Mode of Subsistence without a begotten subsisting Nature And this indeed would effectually answer the Objection for if there be not a begotten and unbegotten Nature the foundation of the Objection is lost And this is so obvious an Answer upon the Hypothesis of Singularity that it is sufficient to satisfy any thinking man that the Câ—tholick Fathers did not believe this Singularity of the Divine Essence since none of them ever gave this Answer to the Objection But we need not guess at their meaning for they themselves expresly reject this Answer which is the only proper and pertinent Answer upon this Hypothesis and give such other Answers as contradict the Notion of the Singularity of the Divine Essence As strange as some think it the Catholick Fathers from the very beginning of Christianity owned the Divine Nature and Substance of the Son to be begotten nothing is more familiar in all their Writings than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Natura genita Deus genitus unigenitus Deus St. Gregory Nyssen agrees this matter with Eunomius that the Divine Nature of the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Begotten Substance so does St. Basil so do the other Fathers When Eunomius objected That God being unbegotten cannot admit of Generation St. Basil allows this to be true in one sense viz. That he who is unbegotten cannot in his own proper Nature be begotten because it is impossible that an unbegotten Nature should it self be begotten But the other sense of the words That he who is unbegotten himself can't beget so as to communicate by a substantial Generation his own Nature to the Son he rejects as Blasphemy both against Father and Son which is a plain demonstration what St. Basil's Judgment was about an unbegotten and begotten Nature Eunomius urged That unbegotten and begotten are both Names of Nature and therefore must signify two Natures as different from each other as unbegotten and begotten are Now to prove that begotten is not the Name of Nature and Substance St. Basil uses this Argument That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the same if begotten and substance signify the same thing then as he who is begotten is the begotten of him who begets so we may in like manner say that he who is begotten is the Substance of him who begets and then the Name begotten will not signify the Substance of the only begotten Son but the Substance of the God of all that as the Son is the begotten of God so he is the Substance of God and thus the begotten is the Substance of the unbegotten which he says is ridiculous And yet as ridiculous as St. Basil thought this those must of necessity
it signified two made of the same Substance by the division and partition of it as two Shillings cut out of the same piece of Silver besides all other Blasphemies the same Father tells us That this destroys the Faith both of Father and Son for in this Sense to be of one Substance can make them no more than Brothers And I need not observe that all the Fathers prove the Son to be Consubstantial to the Father because he was not made nor created but begotten of his Father's Substance which does not refer merely to a specifick Sameness of Nature but to the substantial Communication of the same Nature from Father to Son which is therefore not in meer Notion and Idea but substantially the same in both for they would not allow that a mere specifick Sameness of Nature made Two Persons Consubstantial unless one of them received his Nature and Substance from the other And this seems no improbable account why the Nicene Fathers in their Anathema's added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they teach that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father in opposition to his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of nothing they must by the Substance of the Father mean that Divine Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father for there is no other Notion of begetting a Son of his Father's Substance nor is any other sense of the words directly and immediately opposed to his being made of nothing But then since Ousia does often signify a specifick Nature which the Philosophers call a second Substance to prevent this mistake they added Hypostasis which signifies a first Substance or a subsisting Nature and condemn those who say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of another Nature specifically different from the Nature of the Father as the Arians taught or that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any other Substance than that which is the Substance of the Father and consequently not begotten of the Father for both these are essential to the Notion of the Homoousion to have the same Nature for kind or the true perfect Divine Nature and to receive this Nature from the Father by a substantial Generation and the Council condemns those who deny both or either of these I must add one thing more to make this Notion complete that as the Son is begotten of the Substance of the Father so he receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father This is the constant Doctrine of the Fathers That the Son is Totus ex Toto Whole of Whole That the Divine Generation is not like Human Generations by corporeal Passions by a division of the Father's Substance by a partial efflux or emanation but the Father without any division diminution or alteration of his own Substance communicates his whole Divine Nature to the Son That the Son is perfectly and entirely all and the same that the Father is Thus they expound those sayings of our Saviour All that the Father hath is mine All things are delivered unto me of my Father As the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself Not to signify an external arbitrary Gift and Donation but the Eternal Communication of his whole Divine Nature to the Son that he is Life of Lâ—fe Light of Light God of God Very God of Very God For this Reason the Arians rejected the Homoousion because they thought it absolutely impossible that the Father should beget a Son of his own Substance without a division of his Substance that he should communicate the whole Dâ—vine Nature to his Son and have the same whole Divine Nature himself And the Fathers allow that this is above Human Comprehension as the Divine Nature it self is but think those men little consider the true measure of Human Understanding who will not believe that God has a Son because they cannot comprehend the inessable Mystery of the Eternal Generation The Scripture assures us that God has a Son that Eternal Word which was in the Beginning was with God and was God The very Notion of a Son signifies that he has the same Nature with his Father and receives his Being and Nature from his Father is Substance of his Father's Substance for thus all other Sons receive their nature and substance from their Parents The absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature whiâ—h has no Corporeity no Composition no Parts and therefore can be divided into none proves that the Divine Generation can have nothing like to Human Generations no more than God is like a man and therefore must be as much above Human Comprehension as the Divine Nature is We certainly know what it is not That it is not by any separation or division of Substance for the Divine Nature is a pure simple indivisible Monade but how this Monade can communicate it self we cannot tell But this we know That if a Monade does generate it must generate a perfect whole for when the whole is a simple indivisible uncompounded Monade it must generate its whole or nothing Thus much is evident That to communicate a whole perfect undivided Nature and Substance is the most perfect Generation He is the most perfect Father who communicates his whole Substance to his Son without division or separation who without ceasing to be what he was himself begets a Son wholly and perfectly the same with himself For the more perfectly One Father and Son are the more perfect is the Generation and they cannot be more One than to be One and the same Substance communicated whole and entire from Father to Son There is nothing like this in human Births for the imperfection of created Nature will not admit it the Father communicates the first Seeds and Principles of Life with part of his Substance but the Child is nourished grows and encreases to its just proportion by adventitious matter which never was the Substance of the Father and therefore Father and Son are not One Substance though the Father communicates the same specifick Nature with part of his Substance to his Son Now though we cannot conceive how a whole begets a whole yet we must grant that this is the most perfect Generation for to generate is to communicate Nature and Substance to beget 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another self as the Ancients speak of the Divine Generation and then the more perfectly the Son is the Father's self the more perfect the Generation is and therefore thus God must beget a Son if he begets at all for he must beget in the most perfect manner And thus the Son must be begotten if he be begotten at all for if he be a Son he must be of his Father's Substance and that not a part but the whole for the Divine Substance must be a perfect indivisible Inseparable Monade This Eternal Generation of the Son is
a great and unconceivable Mystery and has always been owned to be so by the Catholick Church we have no Notion or Idea of it but no more have we of the Eternal Existence of the Divine Nature it self without any Cause or Beginning or of the Creation of all things out of nothing or of the Natural Production and Propagation of Created Beings our present Inquiry is not concerning the Mystery of the Eternal Generation but concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Father and Son in what sense they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance and that the Eternal Generation gives an account of For if the Father communicate his whole Nature and Substance to the Son without division and separation which is the Catholick Faith the Son must of necessity have the same one Substance with the Father for a whole same of a whole same cannot be another and therefore must be the same One Substance whole of whole St. Athanasius reasons very subtilly against the Arians upon this Point They taught that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made of nothing as other Creatures are Then says he he must be the Son of God by participation what is it then he partakes of Other Creatures are the Sons of God by the participation of the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit is given by the Son not the Son as the Eternal Son of God sanctified by the Spirit for the Spirit receives all from Father and Son not the Son from the Spirit He must then partake of the Father But what is that and whence is it If that he partakes of be something Extra-essential to the Father which is not the Father's Nature and Essence then he does not partake of the Father but of that Extra-essential Being whatever it is and then he is not second to the Father that whereof he partakes being before him nor is he the Son of the Father but of that Extra-essential Being or Nature by the participation of which he obtains the Title and Character of Son and God But this is very absurd since the Father calls him his Beloved Son and the Son calls God his own Father and therefore is not a Son by Extra-essential Participations but Son is the name of him who participates in the Nature and Substance of the Father But then again If that which is participated of the Father be not the Nature and Essence of the Son the same Absurdity returns there being some middle Term between these two To be of the Father and the Nature of the Son whatever that Nature be which proves that the Nature of the Son is not of the Father and therefore he is not the Son of the Father for Nature makes a Son All this being so absurd it is necessary to own That the true genuine Son of God is all that He is of the Essence and Substance of the Father For when God is thus wholly and perfectly participated it is the same thing as to say that God begets and to beget signifies that he begets a Son And therefore though all things by the Grace of God partake of the Son he will not allow us to say That the Son partakes of any thing which implies that the Son is one thing and that which he partakes of is another But that which is the participation of the Father that is the Son This is the most Natural and Essential Unity that is possible to be conceived That the whole Son is nothing else but the whole entire immediate participation of the Father's Substance and therefore must be as perfectly One with the Father as the Father is One for there is but one and the same Substance which is the Substance of the Father and by an Eternal and Ineffable Generation the Substance also of the Son Though Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Real distinct Persons and each of them have the whole entire Divine Nature in himself yet there is but One Divine Nature One Divinity in them all and therefore they are but One God This is the Account St. Hilary gives why we may say God is One and One and One but not Three Gods Because the Divine Nature is not multiplied with the Persons Thus speaking of the Father and Son he tells us That the Son is One of One and therefore they are both One For between One and One that is One of One there is no Sâ—cond Nature of the Eternal Divinity For as he adds elsewhere The Nature of the Father is born in the Nativity of the Son and for this Reason the Father and Son are One God because the Son is God of the Nature of God But their being thus One does not destroy the subsisting Nature of the Son but in God and God preserves the Nature of One God And therefore the true absolute and perfect Profession of our Faith is To confess God of God and God in God not after the manner of Bodies but by Divine Powers not by transfusion of Nature into Nature but by the Mystery and Power of the Divine Nature For God is of God not by dissection protension or derivation but by the Power of the Divine Nature subsists by his Birth in the same Nature Not so the same Nature that he who is born is he himself who begets for how is that possible since he is begotten but he who is begotten subsists in the same whole entire Nature which is his whole entire Nature who begets And this Perfect Unity Sameness Identity of Nature he resolves into the Mystery of the Divine Generation Virtute Naturoe Mysterio potestate Naturoe for since he is not begotten of any other Substance or Nature but of his Father's Substance and that not after the manner of Bodies by dissection protension or derivation but by the Mysterious Power of the Divinity which communicates it self whole and perfect there must be the same One Divinity in both And he appeals to every man's Understanding what the natural Interpretation of these words are That the Son is of the Father for can of the Father signify that he is of any other than the Father or that he is of nothing or that he is the Father himself He is not of another because he is of the Father for a Son cannot be God if he have any other Father but God and therefore is God of God He cannot be of nothing because he is of the Father and whoever is begotten must be begotten of the Nature of him who begets He is not the Father himself because he is of the Father and the Birth of the Son speaks a necessary relation to the Father Now a Son who is so of the substance of the Father as to be nothing but what he is from the Father and to be all that the Father is whole of whole must have the same One Nature Substance and Divinity with the Father for whole of whole must be the
Peter Iames and Iohn is the very same and therefore there is a specifick Sameness and Unity of Nature between them The Divine Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost is the same not merely in Notion and Idea but Substantially the same and therefore all the names of a Specifick Sameness and Unity do in a more perfect and excellent manner belong to the Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature as Subsisting Perfectly Indivisibly and yet Distinctly in Father Son and Holy Ghost And when we speak of the Sameness of the Divine Nature as subsisting distinctly in Three Divine Persons we have no other words to express it by but such as signify a Specifick Unity and we must use such words as we have and qualifie their sense as well as we can As for instance Those words whereby we signify a common specifick Nature which is One and the Same in all the Individuals of the same Species are the best we have to express the Unity of the Divine Nature as common to Three Persons and thus the Catholick Fathers use them without scruple and speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature and of its being common to all the Three Divine Persons in the same Words and Phrases as they use concâ—rning a common specifick Nature Which leads some into a great mistake as if they meant no more by it but a specifick Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature that Father Son and Holy Ghost have one Substance no otherwise than as Peter Iames and Iohn have one and the same Humane Nature For the Divine Nature is not One merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in mere Notion and Idea but actually indivisibly inseparably One nor is it a common Nature merely as it has a common Name and Definition but by an actual Inexistence in Three For the same reason it is very difficult what Three to call Father Son and Holy Ghost so as to avoid the Heresies of both Extreams for there is no Example of such Three in Nature They are certainly Three for the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost nor the Son the Father or the Holy Ghost and each of the Three is perfect God and therefore an Infinite Mind an Infinite Spirit and the most Perfect Essence and Substance And that Substance which is the Person of the Son is not that Substance which is the Person of the Father no more than the Person of the Son is the Person of the Father or an unbegotten is a begotten Nature and Substance and therefore in opposition to Sabellius they asserted Three Substantial Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases or Personal Substances as Hypostasis signifies tria in substantia tres substantias tres res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet at the same time did assert That there is but One Divine Nature and Substance which indivisibly and inseparably though distinctly subsists in all Three For the understanding of which we must observe That as the Divine Nature which is common to Three is not a mere Species but is really and actually One and the same in all so these Three Divine Persons which have one and the same common Nature are not in a strict and proper notion Individuals of the same common Nature Though we have no Names for these Three but such as signify Individuals as Persons Hypostases Subsistences c. and there being no Created Person Hypostasis or Subsistence but what is an Individual To shew you the difference with respect to the notion of an Individual between the Three Divine Persons and three individual Humane Persons I observe That every Humane Person is such an Individual as has a particular Humane Nature of his own which is not the particular Nature of any other Person the notion and definition of Humane Nature is the same in all men but the same Numerical Humane Nature does not subsist in all but every particular individual man has one particular individual Humane Nature appropriated to himself that is which is his particular Person and as many particular Persons as there are so many particular Humane Natures and particular men there are But now the Divine Persons are not Three such Individuals as these because they have not three individual Divine Natures but the same One Divine Nature common to them all originally in the Father and communicated whole and entire to the Son by an Eternal Generation and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit by an Eternal Procession How impossible soever it is for our finite Understandings to comprehend these Mysteries of the eternal Generation and Procession it is not so hard to conceive the difference between Three Persons who have One individual Nature common to them all but subsisting so distinctly in each of them as to make them Three distinct Persons and Three Persons who have Three Individual Natures of the same Kind and Species As for Instance Three Human Persons which have Three individual Human Natures are by the confession of all Mankind Three Men But could we conceive One individual Human Nature which originally constitutes but One Person to Communicate it self Whole and Entire without Division or Separation to Two other Persons we must acknowledge Three Human Persons each of which Persons is distinctly and by himself True and Perfect Man but not Three Men for Man is a name of Nature and if Persons can be multiplied without multiplying the Nature as we at present suppose there must be Three Human Persons in One individual Human Nature that is Three Persons and One Man but not Three Men no more than Three Human Natures Thus it is with respect to the Divine Nature Were there Three individual Divine Natures Self-originated and Independent on each other though perfectly the same in their Notion and Definition Three such Persons would be as Perfectly Three Gods as Three Human Persons that have Three individual Human Natures are Three Men. But whereas the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church has always believed there is but One Infinite Self-originated Divine Nature Originally in the Father and by Communication in the Son and Holy Spirit these Three Divine Persons are each of them True and Perfect God but not Three Gods because they have not Three Individual Divine Natures but One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly but Whole and Perfect in them all This I think may give us some Notion of One Numerical Common Nature which is no Species and of Persons which are no Individuals St. Austin shews particularly how improper it is to call the One Divine Essence a Genus and the Three Divine Persons Species or to call the Divine Essence a Species and the Divine Persons Individuals for in both these cases we must multiply the name of Essence with the Species and Individuals as we not only say three Horses but three Animals and as Abraham Isaac and Iacob are three Individuals so they are three Men in consequence of which we must
be Three Gods but when there is but One Eternal Father though he have an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit there can be but One God Now what is the meaning of this Is it because none is or can be God True and Perfect God but he who is God of himself Self-originated and Unbegotten This would destroy the Perfect Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and answer the Objection of Tritheism by denying the Trinity And it is certain this could not be their meaning because they owned the Sameness and Equality of Nature of Majesty and Glory of Wisdom and Power in Father Son and Holy Ghost only allowed the Prerogative of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name and relation of Father And when the Arians woul◠prove the diversity of Nature between Father and Son by this Argument That the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten they denied that this inferred the least difference or inequality of Nature Now if the Divine Essence be God and there be a perfect equality of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost though the Father be unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both I desire to know Why Three Persons each of which is True and Perfect God though one be unbegotten another begotten and a third proceeds be not as much Three Gods as Three that are unbegotten are Three Gods The natural Notion of God is an Eternal Unmade Uncreated Essence which gives being to all Creatures but neither Begotten nor Unbegotten belongs to the natural Notion of God but is matter of pure Revelation and therefore Three that are Eternal as to the natural Notion of God are as much Three Gods as Three that are Unbegotten The true Account of it then is this That One Father who is unbegotten himself but begets a Son is but One eternal Divine Essence which he eternally communicates whole and undivided to the Son and therefore is but One Divine Essence still and therefore but One God whereas Three Unbegottens who do not communicate in each other and neither give to nor receive from any other must be Three absolute independent Divine Essences and therefore Three Gods And therefore they do not call the Father the One God merely because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbegotten but as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Deity who communicates his own whole Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit For this reason Athanasius condemns Sabellius for saying that there is but One only God in the Iewish Notion of One God not meaning thereby that there is but One only who is unbegotten and who only is the Fountain of the Deity but that there is but One God as having no Son nor living Word or true Wisdom It were easy to enlarge here and to improve this Observation for the Explication of several difficult Passages in the Fathers but this may satisfy us that the Catholick Fathers by One Substance did not mean a meer specifick but a natural and essential Unity SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity WHat I have discoursed in the last Section concerning the Homoousion and One Substance of the Godhead will receive a new Light if we consider what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity and Inseparability of Essence and Substance whereby they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance and the Unity of the Godhead The Learned Jesuit Petavius has two large Chapters to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers did assert the Singularity and Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature and Substance And I freely grant That as Singularity is opposed to a mere specifick Unity he has unanswerably proved it but why he or the Schools should chuse a word to represent the Sense of the Catholick Fathers by concerning the Unity of the Divine Substance which they themselves rejected as Sabellianism I can't account for for singularis solitarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Singularity of Nature and Substance were rejected as suspected terms at least though they allowed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Vnitas but not Vnio the Unity but not Union which St. Hilary so often calls impia Vnio a wicked Union as destroying the real distinction of Persons and consequently the true Faith of Father Son and Holy Ghost And to do Petavius right he rejects such a notion of singularity as denies the Divinity to be a Common Nature as if it could subsist only in One Person or Hypostasis which he owns to be Sabellianism and that for this reason some of the Fathers he might have said most if not all the Ancient Fathers did reject the use of such words and taught That the Divine Nature is One as any other Nature is which is common to more than one And acknowledges that St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. Austin and others do expresly deny that God is a singular Being and reject the Notion of singularity from the Divine Essence Now such a singularity as this as admits of a real and substantial Communication of the Divine Nature whole of whole to the Son and Holy Spirit is certainly the Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers and what they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost in which they placed the Unity of the Godhead That there must be this Sameness and Identy of Nature in all Three Divine Persons is evident from the last Section for a whole of a whole must be identically the same Whole not so the same as one singular Whole is the same with it self but as the same Whole which thrice subsists without the least conceivable difference is the same with it self in Three And that this is what the Fathers meant by that Sameness of Nature wherein they placed the Unity of the Godhead it were easy to prove by numerous Authorities but some few may serve in so plain a Case One St. Hilary will furnish us with Testimonies enow of this nature He places the Sameness of Nature between Father and Son in this That the Son has by his Eternal Nativity the Nature of the Father without the least dissimilitude or diversity indifferens indissimilis indiscreta Natura and this makes the Father and Son One God But then at the same time he carefully and expresly rejects the Notion of Singularity Solitude and Union Petavius quotes several Passages out of St. Hilary to prove this Singularity of the Divine Essence but all that they amount to and all that he pretends to prove by them is That the Unity between Father and Son is greater than a Specifick Unity or a Communion in the same Specifick Nature
a Confutation of the Charge of Polytheism against the Faith of the Trinity Gregory Nyssen and Damascen and many others having confuted the Pagan Polytheism or plurality of Gods from the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature which can admit of no change or diversity and therefore not of number they immediately proceed to consider the distinction of Persons and Hypostases in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature in opposition to the Iewish Notion of One God for One Single and Solitary Divine Person And here they undertake to prove by Natural Arguments of which possibly more hereafter that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divinity must have an Eternal Subsisting Word which is Life Wisdom Power all the same in his own Person that God is but yet another Person For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divinity is not without its Coeternal Word and Coessential Reason and Wisdom and the same they teach and prove concerning the Eternal Spirit so that they make Father Son and Spirit to be essential to One Divinity not as parts but as perfectly whole and the same in Three distinct Hypostases which they think necessarily included in the Perfection of One Divinity as Reason and Word is essential to a Created Mind This is what they mean by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases not that Three Hypostases are united as it were ex post facto into One Divinity but that One Divinity does subsist Eternally Essentially and Inseparably in Three Hypostases which are necessary to compleat the Notion and Definition of One Divinity Thus it is certain Melanchton understood it and therefore rejects the Definition which Plato gives of God That he is an Eternal Mind the Cause of all Good in the World for though he owns it to be True and Learned when rightly explained yet he says it is defective and must be supplied by the Gospel Revelation That God is a Spiritual Intelligent Essence Eternal True Good Iust Merciful most free of Infinite Power and Wisdom the Eternal Father who from Eternity begat a Son his own Image and the Son the Coeternal Image of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son So that the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity is but One Eternal Coessential Divinity that were there more Divinities than One there must of necessity be more Trinities also according to the Doctrine of these Fathers which is evidence enough that this Argument against a plurality of Divinities from the perfect Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature which can't be multiplied can't concern a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons in the same One Eternal Undivided Divinity For the same One Divinity is not multiplied by a Trinity of Persons Coeternal and Coessential if this be the Nature and Unity of the Deity to subsist whole and perfectly in Three which was the constant Doctrine of the Fathers and which this Argument don't oppose nay so far from it that it as evidently proves the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons as it confutes a Plurality of Godheads and Divinities for if the Sameness and Identity of Nature will not admit of a Plurality of Divinities then if Three are perfectly One and the same in Nature they are but One Divinity One God Thus the Incircumscriptibility or Omnipresence of the Divine Nature is a good Argument against a Plurality of God's or Divinities which must be separated if they be more than One and therefore circumscribed or of a limited and confined presence but it is no Argument against a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence which are all mutually in each other and therefore equally Unconfined and Omnipresent and perfectly One by an Essential and Inseparable Union And are not these Fathers now like to prove very notable Tritheites who prove the impossibility that there should be more Divinities than One and the perfect Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Divine Persons from that perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between them But yet for all this Tritheites they are and must be if they acknowledge Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God in no other sense than Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man that is because they agree in the same common Nature which has the same notion and definition and is upon that account One and the same in all This is what they are charged with and I should not have wondred at it had only some Careless and Unskilful Readers charged them with it for they do say something which at first view may look like it but then such Sayings as manifestly contradict their avowed Doctrine not only in other places of their Writings but in those very Places where these Sayings are found ought in all Reason and Justice to be expounded only by way of Analogy and accommodation as containing some imperfect Image and Resemblance of that which Nature has no proper and adequate Example of This must be allowed in all the Natural Representations which are made by the Catholick Fathers of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever-blessed Trinity or there is not one of them but what literally and Philosophically applied would furnish out some new Heresy This I have already shewn in the Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature which the Nicene Fathers did teach in a qualified Sense though it appears from all I have said in the last and this present Section how far they were from thinking the Divine Nature to be a meer Species or Logical Notion though it has this resemblance to a Species that it is One and Common but not merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in meer Notion and Idea but by an actual Subsistence and Inexistence in all Three being as perfectly wholly indivisibly the same in all and in each of the Divine Persons as a Specifick Nature is Notionally and Ideally one and the same in every individual of the same kind which as I have made appear is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sameness and Identity of Nature wherein they place the Unity of the Godhead And yet this is the only foundation of the present Charge that they make Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only by a Specifick Unity as Three Individuals of the same kind and Species suppose Peter Iames and Iohn are one Man That all this is a mistake is evident because these Fathers do not resolve the Unity of the Godhead into a meer Specifick Unity of Nature and the occasion of this mistake is great Inadvertency as will appear in a very few words Gregory Nyssen is principally charged with this Paradox and in vindicating him I shall vindicate all the rest The Question which Ablabius desired him to resolve was this That since Peter Iames and Iohn though they have but one common Humanity are yet called three Men and no man denies
but that the name of Nature may be multiplied when there are more who are united in the same Nature how comes it to pass that we contradict this in the Mystery of the Trinity that we acknowledge Three Hypostases who have the very same Nature without the least difference or diversity and yet teach that the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost is but One and forbid saying that there are Three Gods Now the better to understand the Father's Answer we muâ—t observe that this was an Arian Objection against the Homoousion or the perfect Sameness Indifference and Equality of Nature between Father and Son For the design of it was as St. Gregory himself observes to reduce them to this dangerous Dilemma either to assert Three Gods which is unlawful or to deny the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is impious and absurd If they denied the Sameness and Equality of Nature then the Son and Holy Ghost are not True and Perfect God consubstantial with the Father or if Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Common Nature and are perfectly consubstantial then they are Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn who have the same One Common Humanity are Three Men and there is the very same reason for calling Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Gods that there is for calling Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men that is the same Nature common to them all This was the Objection St. Gregory was to answer and therefore his business was to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are not and ought not to be called Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are and may be called Three Men and therefore he must prove That they are neither Three nor One in the same sense that Three Men are Three and One for if they were they would be as truly and properly Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men and no more One God than they are One Man which had been to give up the Cause to the Arians instead of answering their Objection This may satisfy any man that those Learned Persons are very much mistaken who charge such a sense upon this Father as is directly contrary to his design for he understood the Laws of Reasoning better Neither he nor any other Father I ever yet met with asserted that Peter Iames and Iohn were but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God no otherwise than Peter Iames and Iohn are One Man which yet is what has been charged upon them But does not Greg. Nyssen say That it is a catachrestical way of speaking tho become common and familiar to multiply the name of Nature with the Individuals of the same Nature As to say That there are many Men because there are many who have the same Human Nature But if we would speak accurately and properly we should say that there is but one Man how many soever have the same Nature And does not he apply this to the Unity of God And can this have any other sense than that the same Divine Nature makes Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God as the same Human Nature makes all the Men in the World but one Man The Interpretation of which seems to be That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men but that it is very improper to call either the one or the other Three for they are but One by One Common Nature Now this Father does indeed say and so many others of them say That the name of Nature ought not to be multiplied with the Individuals but he was far enough either from saying or thinking what he is charged with That Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Men but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God in no other sense but as Three Men are One And a due attendance to the Series of the Argument would have discovered the Falseness and Absurdity of this Imputation which therefore I shall briefly explain The Arian Objection which St. Gregory undertook to answer as I observed before was this That since the Catholick Church owned the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be consubstantial and to have the same undiversified Nature they must for that reason be Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn upon account of the same common Humanity are acknowledged to be Three Men That is that whether in God or Man the same Nature in Three must make Three Individuals of the same Kind and Species and therefore as the same Human Nature in Three makes Three Men so the same Divine Nature Three Gods In answer to this St. Gregory first observes That it is not the same common Nature which distinguishes and multiplies Individuals no not in Men Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Individuals in the Species of Humanity merely by having the same Nature which is the force of the Arian Objection for what is perfectly the same in all can't distinguish or multiply them And this is plainly all that he means when he says That the name of Nature ought not to be used plurally and therefore Man being the name of Nature and signifying the same with Humanity we ought no more if we speak properly and Philosophically to say Three Men than Three Humanities or Three Human Natures for he proves that the name Man does not distinguish one Man from another nor can we single any particular Man out of a Crowd by that Compellation for there is but One Man or One Humamanity in them all that name not belonging primarily and immediately to the Individuals as such but to the common Nature Well but are there not Individual Men then as well as a Common Nature Yes without doubt but they are distinguished and multiplied not by the Common Nature which is the same in all but by such peculiar Properties as diversify and distinguish Common Nature as it subsists separately in particular Persons and that makes the Number though Nature be one and the same a perfect indivisible Monad This is not merely to criticize upon Words or to dispute against the common Forms of Speech but to give a true Philosophical Reason of their different Use when applied to God and Creatures We commonly call Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men and right enough but then they are not Three Men merely upon account of the same Common Humanity in them all which was the Arian Objection for Humanity is but One in all and what is perfectly One can't be numbred To say there are Three Humanities all Men grant to be absurd and yet it is to the full as absurd to say that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men merely upon account of the same Humanity strictly and precisely taken as to say that there are Three Humanities So that though Peter Iames and Iohn could not be nor be called Three Men without the same Common Nature yet some peculiar distinguishing
make Three Gods because there is but one and the same Divinity in Three And this is what they mean by the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not that Unity or Unit which is the beginning of Number but the Unity of Sameness and Identity which Tho. Aquinas calls unum non numero sed re numerata One not in the numbring Number but in the thing mumbred or as the Fathers speak not in Number but Nature The better to understand this matter we must consider what St. Basil discourses about the Unity of God in answer to those who charged the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tritheism viz. That they acknowledged One God but not in Number the numbring Number but in Nature For that which is One in Number is not truly One nor perfectly Simple in Nature but all men acknowledge God to be the most Simple Uncompounded Being and therefore he is not One in the Notion of this numbring Number This he proves by an induction of particulars we say the World is one in number but not one in nature for it is compounded of great variety of Creatures and we say one Man but Man is compounded of Body and Soul and even any Angel is not perfectly pure and simple but is compounded of Essence and Qualities such as Holiness which is not pure and simple Nature for it may be separated He adds that Number is a Species of quantity and answers to the Question How many which properly belongs to a Corporeal Nature And indeed all Number denotes such things as have a material or at least a circumscribed and limited Nature but Monad and Vnity denote the Simple Uncompounded Uncircumscribed Infinite Essence And when he says That Number must belong to things of a Circumscribed Nature thereby he tells us he means not merely such things as are circumscribed by Place which properly belongs to Bodies but all such Natures as have a limited and confined Idea as all Created Natures whether Body or Spirit have whose Natures are limited circumscribed fixt and determined by that Infinite Mind which gives being to them The meaning of all which is this That to make a Number there must be Alterity and Diversity in Nature or a separate Existence But a Perfect Simple Uncompounded Nature can admit of no possible alteration and diversity for the same Nature can never differ from it self without some kind of composition and where there is no difference and diversity there can be no number and an Infinite Uncircumscribed Nature can never be divided and separated or subsist a-part and therefore can't be numbred So that Number can belong only to Created Natures which are compounded and finite and therefore by some diversifying Qualities or Affections and a separate Exâ—istence may be distinguished into Individuals which may be numbred but the Unity of the Divine Nature which is a Perfect Indivisible Uncompounded Infinite Monad is not the Unity of Number but a Perfect Invariable Sameness and Identity and an Indivisible inseparable Union Now some Men who do not duly attend to the nature and design of these Reasonings apply all this to prove the Perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence in the most strict and proper notion of Singularity as that signifies One in Number which contradicts the whole Intention of this Hypothesis which is to prove that the Unity of God does not consist in the Unity of Number but of Nature and that the Unity of the Divine Nature is not a Unity of Number but a Unity of Sameness Identity and Inseparability This is a Matter of great consequence and therefore let us consider it over again This distinction between the Unity of Number and the Unity of Nature was alledged by the Catholick Fathers to avoid the Charge of Tritheism The Sabellians and Arians asserted the Unity of God to be a Unity of Number that One Divinity is not One unless it be One in Number One Single Solitary Divine Nature And this say they is inconsistent with the Trinity of Divine Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God For Three such Divine Persons must be Three Gods Three Divinities if each Divine Person have the True Perfect Divine Nature in himself and it is impossible to understand what a Divine Person is without the Divine Nature So that if the Father be God the Son God the Holy Ghost God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be Three they must be Three Gods This was the great Difficulty and it is the only material Difficulty to this day To have asserted but One Singular Divine Nature which is but One in Number had given up the Cause to the Sabellians or Arians For then either Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Offices of the same One Divine Person who is the One God as the Sabellians taught Or Father Son and Holy Ghost are not a Consubstantial Trinity but the Father alone is God and the Son and Holy Ghost but mere Creatures how Excellent Creatures soever they are On the other hand should they have denied that Three Ones make Three this had been false counting as the Socinians tell us now and therefore to avoid both these Extremes they distinguish between the Number by which we reckon and the thing which is numbred and thus they find a Real Trinity in Perfect Unity As Greg. Nyssen tells us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same thing the same Divinity is both numbred and not subject to Number It may so far be numbred with the Persons as each Divine Person has the whole and perfect Divinity in himself but yet the Divinity can't be numbred not because it is One Single Solitary Divinity for it really subsists in Three but by reason of that perfect Sameness and Identity which admits of no Number for that which is perfectly one and the same in Three can't be numbred Had they thought of such a Singularity of the Divine Nature as is but One in Number they must have disputed at another rate against Sabellians and Arians Would they have taught That the Divinity may be numbred and yet is without Number Which is impossible to be true of the same singular Divinity which is but One in Number and therefore can never be more than One in Number that is in that Father's sense cannot be numbred much less can the same Singular Nature be numbred and incapable of Number that is be One and More than One. Would they have taken so much pains to prove That Sameness and Identity of Nature excludes all Number if by this they had meant the Sameness and Identity of Singularity as the same thing is one and the same thing with it self which is no great Mystery And is it not evident that this whole Dispute is concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three distinct Persons and consequently concerning that Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between Three who have the same Nature and therefore not One
in the Notion of Singularity which is One in Number not in the Sameness and Identity of Nature Would they have insisted on that distinction of Units in Number and Units in Nature that the first multiplies the second does not had they believed that there are no Units in the Divinity not One and One and One but only One Singular Divinity At least could Boetius who so particularly explains and urges this distinction intend to prove by it the Singularity of the Divine Essence when at the same time he defines a Person to be the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature and assigns this distinction as the Reason why though we number Three in the same Divinity yet there are not Three Divinities or Three Divine Natures or Essences because the Repetition of Units in the thing to be numbred where there is a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature makes no Number In this sense it was that the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substance because the Divine Substance by reason of its perfect Sameness and Identity can't be numbred and what can't be numbred they call a Singular Substance But they expresly reject as the Catholick Fathers did Singularity in the sense of Solitude as it signifies one alone by himself without any Communion or Fellowship consortium with any other in the same Divine Essence And therefore the Master of the Sentences expresly distinguishes between Diversity Singularity or Solitude and Unity and Trinity Distinction and Identity Now let any man judge what that Unity is which is not Singularity or Solitude but a Unity in Trinity and what that Distinction is which is perfect Identity without any Diversity For my part I can make nothing of it but this perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three which numbers Persons but not Natures Estius takes notice of that Objection against the Trinity That the Father is God and the Son is God therefore the Father is the Son which Consequence is resolved into that Maxim Quaecunque eadem sunt uni tertio eadem sunt inter se whatever things are the same with the same Third are the same with each other To which he answers That this Rule holds true only where the Third is a perfect Singular Deus autem non prorsus singulare nomen est but God is not upon all Accounts a name of Singularity that is does not signify One only who is God but signifies such a Singular Nature as is communicable to Three Significat enim Naturam Singularem sed quae communicari possit tribus suppositis That is It is not a Singular Nature with the Singularity of solitude because it is communicable and can subsist distinctly in Three but only with the Singularity of Identity as he explains it from St. Hilary Dist. 23. Sect. 4. to which he refers his Reader So that though the Schools did use this Phrase of a Singular Nature and Substance which the Catholick Fathers rejected as Sabellianism yet they did not use it in that Sense which the Father 's rejected for One Solitary Nature which can be but One Person and therefore Estius observes that Aquinas uses this name of Singularity when applied to the Divinity non simpliciter sed cum cautela not simply and absolutely but with caution and qualifies it with ut sic liceat loqui if I may have leave so to speak And he imitates this Caution himself Dist. 23. Sect. 1. when he tells us That the Divine Essence may quodam sensu in a certain sense be said to be individual as it neither is a Genus nor Species but res una numero ut it a dicamus singularis numerically One and if we may say so Singular though it be not individual in the sense that Boetius defines a Person to be an Individual Substance because it is not incommunicable This shews That though the Schools have in this Question changed the Ancient Catholick Language by teaching That the Divine Essence is Vna Numero Singularis One in Number and Singular whereas the Catholick Fathers denied that God was One in Number but only in Nature and denied the Singularity of the Divine Nature which Confusion and appearing Contradiction of Terms occasions great Mistakes yet they meant the very same thing and their Philosophy about Singularity and Number was the same For they taught a Communicable Singularity of Nature which is opposed to a Sabellian Solitude and rejected the numbring Number from the Divinity They universally deny That God is One in that sense of Unity which is the beginning of Number For Number is a Species of Quantity nascitur ex divisione continui is made by Division and to assert God to be One in this Sense is to ascribe Quantity to him for nothing can be thus One but what has Magnitude and Figure that is nothing but Body for Number as it is a Species of Quantity can belong to nothing but Body which has divisible Parts and Extensions and Magnitude which may be One or more This is certainly true as to that kind of Number which is a Species of Quantity for that can measure only such things as have Quantity But then they were sensible that other Beings are numbred besides Bodies even Incorporeal Spirits who have no Quantity Parts or Divisibility and yet these we number when we say a Hundred or Thousands or Millions of Angels This they own and call it a Transcendental Number that is such a Number as is not reduced to the Predicament of Quantity But that is little to the purpose if Spirits which have no Quantity may be numbred what is it that makes a Number in them And why may not Number then belong to the Divinity though it be not quantum have no Predicamental that is Corporeal Quantity To this they answer That this Transcendental Vnity adds no form to the thing but only signifies the thing it self as undivided from it self Well! But if this be all then God who is thus indivisible from himself may as properly be called One as One Angel is said to be One No say they For to entitle any thing even to this Transcendental Numerical Unity ratione rei subjectoe Naturam ejus designat ut limitatam atque extra res alias positam it must be considered to have a Finite and Limited Nature and to subsist separately from all other Beings and to be diversified from each other in Nature or Qualities Res una ab alia Natura vel qualitatibus discreta intelligitur But now Unity in God though it resemble this Transcendental Unity as adding no Form to God that is not supposing him to be Corporeal as the Predicamental Unity does yet it does not signify any thing limited and finite in God but only his Undivided Inseparable Being As Number in God that is the Trinity does signify the real distinction of Three Non ita tamen ut ea plura Natura vel Qualitatibus discreta intelligantur singula
be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature Essence and Substance there could never have been any occasion for this Dispute about One Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis and Three Essences Natures Substances Hypostases nor for that known Distinction by which they reconciled this difference between Essence and Hypostasis that the first signifies something analogous to a Common Specifick Nature the second to Individuals If the Divine Nature subsisted in Singularity or were but One Singular Subsisting Nature Essence and Hypostasis must signify the same thing for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence is Substance and so is Hypostasis and in this sense they must both signify a first Substance and then one singular Subsisting Nature or Substance and three singular Subsisting Natures and Substances is an irreconcilable Contradiction Had the Singularity of the Divine Nature been the Catholick Faith we should never have heard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Common Nature and Essence of the Divinity for Singular and Common are express Contradictions and a Singular Subsisting Nature can have nothing thing analogous in it to a Common Specifick Nature If each Divine Person be not the Divine Nature Essence Substance there can be no Pretence that Essence and Substance should ever signify a Person nor can any Interpretation make Three Essences and Substances Catholick Doctrine if there be no sense wherein Three Persons may Orthodoxly be called Three Essences and Substances as there can't be if a Person as a Person be not Essence and Substance And on the other hand if Hypostasis which is the peculiar and appropriate Name whereby the Greek Fathers denote a Person do not signify Essence and Substance it could never be Orthodox to say that there is but One Hypostasis no more than it is to say that there is but One Person in the Trinity 2. But to set aside this Dispute concerning Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis in the Trinity which though allowed to be Catholick yet were sparingly and cautiously used because they were liable to Heretical Senses I observe farther That these words Essence Nature Substance are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity which could not be Orthodox were not each Person distinctly in himself Essence Nature Substance What I have already discoursed with relation to Sabellianism and upon several other occasions sufficiently proves this and I shall not trouble my Readers with a needless Repetition Petavius owns it and has given several Instances of it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essentia Natura Substantia do not always signify the common Essence of the Divinity but the Divine Persons that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Person of the Father and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Person of the Son which is undoubtedly true but still Essence signifies Essence and Nature Nature and Substance Substance and the only reason he has to say That in this construction the Words signify a Person is because they are used singularly and construed with the name of a Person as the Essence and Substance of the Father or of the Son But this is no reason if the Essence be not the Person if the Essence of the Fâ—ther do not signify that Essence which is the Person of the Father and the Essence of the Son that Essence which is the Person of the Son For if a Divine Person be not the Divine Essence Essence can never signify Person And yet if they do believe that each Divine Person is by himself in his own Person Essence and Substance the whole undivided Divinity I cannot imagine the reason of this Criticism why they should be more afraid to say the Essence and Substance of the Father than the Person of the Father unless it be that this does not so well agree with their Notion of the singularity of the Divine Essence as I doubt indeed it will not especially if we add the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Unbegotten and begotten Substance the one the Person of the Father the other of the Son of which more hereafter but this is not to learn our Faith from the Fathers but to expound them by our preconceived Opinions 3 dly I observe farther That all those words which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the notion of Substance and were never thought Catholick in any other sense Hypostasis is the most received word among the Greek Fathers to signify a Person and One Essence and Three Hypostases was the Catholick Language Now it is agreed on all hands That Hypostasis literally signifies Substance and as I have already observed the only dispute about it was that some by Hypostasis understood the Common Nature and Substance in the notion of Essence and for that reason asserted That there is but One Hypostasis as there is but One Essence in the Trinity others understood a singular Subsisting Nature and Substance and in this sense asserted Three Hypostases but none of them ever understood Hypostasis in any other notion but that of Substance either a Common or Individual Substance And to prevent this Ambiguity as far as they could which might conceal very different Heresies Sabellianism on one hand and Arianism on the other and many times occasioned the Orthodox to suspect each other of these opposite Heresies though Essence and Hypostasis signified much the same thing yet they appropriated the name Essence to signify a Common Nature and Substance and Hypostasis to signify Individuals As we learn from St. Basil Greg. Nyssen Damascen and many other Catholick Writers who assign this difference between Essence and Hypostasis But yet this did not wholly silence this Dispute among the Greeks much less did it satisfy the Latin Fathers who knew no difference between Essentia Substantia but translated the Homoousion by Vnius Substantiae and therefore it was as great Heresy to them to say Three Substances as they translated the Greek Hypostases as to say Three Essences in the Trinity St. Austin professes That he knew not what the Greeks meant by One Essence and Three Substances and for the same reason it is well known St. Ierom rejected Three Substances for both by Essence and Substance they understood a Common Nature which made it Heresy indeed to assert Three Substances which in this acceptation of the word must signify Three divers Substances which specifically differ And therefore tho they did not reject the Greek Faith but did believe as heartily as they that each Person by himself was perfect Hypostasis and Substance and rejected the Sabellian One Hypostasis and One Substance yet they did not like the Phrase of Three Hypostases and Three Substances for they knew no difference between Three Substances and Three Essences and by both understood Three different Kinds and Species of Beings And for this Reason both to secure the Catholick Faith from such
a diversity and dissimilitude of Nature as Three Essences and Substances may signify and from a Sabellian Unity and Singularity they chose such words as signified a Real Perfect Subsisting Being but did not immediatly and formally signify Essence and Substance tho they did necessarily suppose and connote it Such among the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Latins subsistentia suppositum res ens Existence Subsistence Subject Suppositum Thing Being which every one sees must signify something as real as Essence and Substance and must necessarily include Essence and Substance in their very notion and that thus they were used by the Catholick Fathers Petavius proves by numerous Quotations which the Reader may consult at his leisure And though some of these words are sometimes used singularly of all Three Divine Persons in the notion of a Common Essence and Substance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 res in which sense St. Austin called the Trinity unam summam rem yet both Fathers and Schoolmen did without any scruple use them in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tres subsistentiae tres res tria supposita tria entia realia that the Divine Persons were Three Existences Three Subsistencies Three Suppositums Three Things Three Real Beings and why not then Three Essences and Three Substances since every suppositum every Thing every Real Being is Essence and Substance the reason of which is plainly this That Essence and Substance unless qualified with some limiting Adjuncts signify the formal Reasons of things and can't be multiplied without diversity whereas the other Terms signify nothing but Real and Actual Existence which does not diversify and therefore not multiply the Essence for Three Suppositums Three Subjects Three Things Three Real Beings may have One Essence Nature and Substance formally identically and invariably the same But there is some dispute about the use of those words Existence and Subsistence Petavius observes a great difference between the Ancient and Modern use of them That the Ancients used them in a Concrete Sense for Person and Substance that which does really exist and subsist as he proves by several Quotations but that the Schoolmen use them in an abstract Sense for the modifications of Substance which they call Modes which together with the Substance constitute what we call Persons of which more hereafter and this may be true as to some later Schoolmen but the more Ancient and many Modern Schoolmen retained the Old Catholick use of the words and Suarez could trace the Doctrine of Modes no higher than Durandus Peter Lombard is express in it That Three Persons are tres subsistentioe tres entes Three Subsistencies Three Beings and tres subsistentioe vel entes subsistentioe vel subsistentes Subsistencies or Beings Subsistencies or those that subsist Thus Tho. Aquinas tells us That Persons are res subsistentes subsisting things And in answer to that Objection against a plurality of Persons in the Godhead that a Person according to Boetius being rationalis naturoe individua substantia the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature if there be a plurality of Persons in the Godhead there must consequently be a plurality of Substances he tells us That Substance either signifies the Essence or the Suppositum that in this last sense it is used in the definition of a Person as appears by the addition of Individual which is what the Greeks call Hypostasis and therefore assert Three Hypostases Individual Substances as we do Three Persons but we don't use to say Three Substances by reason of the equivocal use of the word lest we should be thought to assert Three Essences in the Godhead From whence it is plain that by Three Subsistencies Tho. Aquinas understood Three that subsist Three Individual Substances in the Notion of Three distinct Suppâ—situms though not of Three different Essences for this is the true distinction he makes between Suppositum and Essence that they both signify Substance but the one signifies as Matter and the other as Form and therefore the Plurality of Suppositums of Subsistencies does not multiplâ—â—â—e Essence or Form for Three may be perfectly One in Nature and Essence but to multiply Essences to say there are Three Nâ—tures or Three Essences is to diversify them and to make Three Gods specifically and essentially different After this I need not add much concerning the Notion of Person The Ciceronian sense of this word too much in use of late wherein the same Man may be said to sustain several Persons according to his different Relations Offices and Quality has as I have observed before been rejected by all Catholick Writers as Sabellianism St. Austin generally speaking is the Text to the Master of the Sentences and He to the Schoolmen and that Father is express in it that Person is Essence and Substance that the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father From whose Authority P. Lombard concludes That Person is used in the Notion of Substance That when we say the Father is a Person the sense is the Father is the Divine Essence He observes from the same Father that the Latins used Person in the same sense that the Greeks used Hypostasis which in Latin literally signifies Substance but yet they were very cautious of saying Three Substances as the Greeks did Three Hypostases because though the Greeks distinguished between Essence and Substance that Essence expressed the formal Nature of things Substance what in Creatures we call the Matter or Suppositum yet the Latins knew no such distinction and therefore Three Substances to them was the same with Three Essences which would assert a diversity in the Divine Nature And this he shews was the only Objection St. Hierom had against Three Substances or Three Hypostases which he allowed in the Notion of Tres Personas subsistentes Three subsisting Persons but not of Three Natures or Essences and this Solution he acquiesces in That Tres Personoe sunt Tres Substantioe scilicet Tres Entes pro quo Groeci dicunt Tres Hypostases That Three Persons are Three Substances that is Three Real Beings which the Greeks call Three Hypostases And though he observes that Person may sometimes signify that Personal Property whereby one Divine Person is distinguished from another yet he will not allow us to call Three Persons Three Properties but Three Subsistencies or Three Hypostases for the Property is not the Person but only distinguishes Persons of which more hereafter And he reduces the several acceptations of Person as used in the Doctrine of the Trinity to these three 1. That it sometimes signifies the Divine Essence as it does when we speak singularly of any One Person for the Person of the Father is the Divine Essence and so of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Subsistencies and Hypostases as when we speak in the Plural Number Three Persons are Three Subsistencies Three Hypostases but unius Essentioe of one
and the same Essence 3. A Property as when we distinguish the Persons by their Personal Properties Thomas Aquinas and generally the Schools receive and vindicate that Definition which Boetius gives of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature as I have already observed whereby they expresly tell us that they understand Aristotle's Substantia Prima or a Subsisting Individual St. Austin thought that the Greeks might as well have used Prosopon as Hypostasis for what the Latins called Person and why they rather said Hypostasis he could not tell unless perhaps the Propriety of their Language required it and this was the truth of the Case for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a very ambiguous word taken originally from the Stage as Persona also was and signified that Vizor which was put over the Face to represent the Person whom they intended to act and so was used to signify a mere Appearance and Representation not a Real Subsisting Person and therefore St. Basil tells us That the Sabellians who owned but One Essence and Hypostasis in God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Scripture represented God under different Personal Appearances sometimes as the Father sometimes as the Son or Holy Spirit and adds That therefore those who affirm that Father Son and Holy Ghost are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One in Subject Hypostasis or Suppositum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three perfect Persons or Prosopa or Appearances justify the Charge of Sabellianism imputed by the Arians to the Catholicks And in another place he tells us That those who say that Essence and Hypostasis are the same are forced to acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only different Prosopa oâ— Appearances and while they are afraid to own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases they relapse into the Sabellian Heresy And therefore Petavius truly observes That though the Catholick Fathers did not scruple the use of this term Prosopon yet they used it in the sense of Hypostasis and the Notion of Hypostasis joined with Prosopon makes up the true Catholick Notion of a Person as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as he says proves that these Persons have not one simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Suppositum nor are merely different Functions and Energies of the same Individual Being but that the Diversity and Multiplicity is in the Subject it self and that there are Three truly and really distinct and that subsist distinctly This I hope is a sufficient Proof of the first thing proposed That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance but I added also That it is nothing else and I must speak something briefly to this The absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no kind of Composition neither of Parts nor of Substance and Accident nor of Nature and Suppositum that which has and that which is had is the universal Doctrine both of the Catholick Fathers and Schools as I need not prove and the necessary Consequence of this is That a Divine Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature Essence and Substance for were a Divine Person the Divine Nature and something else there must be a Composition in the Divine Nature something superadded to it to make it a Person The Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons as I have shewn at large is resolved into the perfect invariable Sâ—meness and Identity of Nature the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Three and therefore each Divine Person must be the whole Divine Nature and Essence and nothing else for otherwise the Divine Essence could not be perfectly one and the same in Three but would be distinguished and multiplied by some new Accidents and Modifications as Human Nature is in distinct Human Persons A Trinity of Persons is a known Objection against the absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Answer to it is as well known That those Relations which distinguish Persons make no Composition in the Divine Nature and then a Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature if there be no Composition to make a Person But of this more presently 2 dly The next thing I proposed was this That according to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools the Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another This is so universally acknowledged by all who own real and substantial Persons that I need say little of it I have produced several express Testimonies already out of the Fathers to this purpose and indeed to say That the Substance of each Person is proper and incommunicable is no more than to say that their Persons are incommunicable that the Father is not and never can be the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son which is what they meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly and appropriately Father and Son that the Father never was nor can be a Son nor the Son a Father Thus their different Characters prove an incommunicable distinction between them The Son is the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Living Substantial Image but the Image tho by an Identity of Nature it is the same with the Prototype yet it is not and never can be the Prototype not imaginale but imaginalis imago as Victorinus Afer speaks not the Person nor Personal Substance of the Father but the express Image of his Person and Substance In Boetius's Definition of a Person by individua substantia the Schools as far as I have observed universally understand incommunicabilis substantia an incommunicable Substance and therefore as I observed before though they assert the Divine Essence to be singularis yet it is singularis communicabilis a communicable Singular but a Person is substantia individua or singularis incommunicabilis a singular incommunicable Substance Now this started a great Difficulty How the Essence and Substance of the Father which is but One can be both communicable and incommunicable The Person of the Father which is his Divine Essence is incommunicable and yet the Father communicates his own Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit without communicating his Person Of the same Nature is what the Schools teach concerning the Divine Generation and Procession They allow that the Father does truly and properly not metaphorically beget the Son and that the Son is truly and properly begotten and that the Father by Divine Generation communicates the Divine Essence to the Son and that the Son has all that he has from the Father and is all that the Father is excepting that he is not the Father but the Son And yet they will not allow that the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten or proceeds They have a great Authority against them in
in him are â—quivalent Expressions in Scripture 1 John 18. No man hath seen Gâ—d at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him Where to see God and to be in the Bosom of the Father must signify the same thing for to be in the Bosom of the Father is put in the place of seeing God that is to see him within to see him in his Bosom as the Word sees the Mind and this is to be in his Bosom and thus the Son is in the Father The same Account we have of the Holy Spirits being in God 1 Cor. 2.11 For what man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of man which is in him even so the things of Gâ—d knoweth no man but the Spirit of God that is the Spirit of God is in God as the Spirit of a Man is in Man and therefore by this In-being the Spirit of God knows all the Things of God by such an Internal Conscious Sensation as the Spirit of Man knows what is in Man Thus what is the Unity of Energy and Operation but the same Conscious Will and Power acting distinctly but inseparably in Three for without this Internal Consciousnâ—ss they must be Three separate Wills and separate Powers and produce distinct and separate Effects but when God his Word and Spirit are in each other and see and know and feel each other in themselves as a Man's Mind his Word and Spirit do though in a more perfect and excellent manner there can be but One undivided Motion of the Divine Will as there is but One Conscious Life in Three the Son lives subsists wills understands and acts in and with the Father and therefore is but One Eternal Life One Almighty Will and Power Now as Novel as some Men think this Notion of the Vnity of Mutual Consciousness to be we meet with it more than once in express words in Sâ— Hilary whose Authority I hope is sufficient to vindicate it from the charge of Novelty Thus with reference to what our Saviour says No man knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him 11. Matth. 27. St. Hilary observes Hilar. de Trin. c. 2 Illis scientia mutua est illis vicissim câ—gnitio perfecta That Father and Son have a mutual perfect Knowledge of each other And this he asserts to be a Conscious Knowledge connate with him a Conscious Sensation of his Father's Nature in himself which our Sâ—viour himself signifies by his Unity of Nature and Operation with the Father as the Reader may see in the Margin Thus Tertullian long before describ'd this mutual Consciousness between God and his Eternal Word and Wisdom by what we feel in our selves when we silently muse alone our Word does as it were talk with us and return our Thoughts to us is present with us in every Turn and Motion and Pulse of Thought and internal Sensation as conscious to all within us Thus he tells us That the Son alone knows the Father and does not his own but his Father's Will which he knows de proximo imo de initio that is by an immediate Intuitive Knowledge not by External Communication but by Internal Sensation Thus the Son does nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do in sensu scilicet facientem in his own Mind and Will Pater enim sensu agit the Father does all things by disposing and ordering all things in his own Mind and Will Filius vero qui in sensu Patris est videns perficit The Son who is in the Mind and Sense and Will of the Father sees the Father's Will and does it Now let any Man tell me what else can be meant by the Sons being in sensu Patris videns in sensu Patris but this Internal Conscious Sensation St. Cyril of Alexandria calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Son Wills together with the Father and with the same Will Dionysius the Areopagite says This Union does not only exceed all bodily Unions but the Unions also of Souls and Minds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Fulgentius tells us The Word was with God sicut in mente verbum sicut in câ—rde consilium as the Word is in the Mind and Counsel in the Heart Marius Victorinus Afer tells us to the same purpose That the Son being in the Bosom of the Father signifies that he is God that he is in the Bosom and Womb of his Substance and therefore they are Consubstantial each of them being in each other and knowing each other But not to multiply Quotations all those Catholick Fathers and Doctors who placed the Unity of the Godhead in Consent and none of them rejected this in a Catholick Sense could understand nothing less by it than this mutual natural Consciousness for any other Consent was down right Arianism as St. Hilary witnesses and yâ—t thus the famous Lucian whom the Arians would have challenged as theirs but whom the Catholick Church always owned expresses it in his Creed and thus per substantiam tria per consonantiam verò unum Three in Substance but in Consent and Agreement One is justified by St. Hilary Hilar. de Synod as very Catholick but then he refers this to the Holy Spirit who is the substantial Bond and Cement of this Union and Consent But Gregory Nyssen who allows of this Unity of Consent more intelligibly represents it by the Consent and Uniformity of all the Motions between the Prototype and its Image or a Man's Face in a Glass which moves and acts with it Thus Christ is the Image of the Invisible God and is immediately and instantly affected together with his Father Does the Father Will any thing The Son also who is in the Father knows the Fathers Will or rather is the Father 's Will. But this I think is sufficient to be said about mutual Consciousness which is so manifestly the Doctrine of the Fathers of some in express Terms and of all according to the true Interpretation of what they taught that I cannot imagine the meaning of this furious Zeal against it but a Sabellian Zeal against Three Conscious Persons for one single Self-conscious Nature As St. Hilary observes in the Dispute between the Sabellians and Arians The Arians allowed Father and Son to be Two Distinct Persons but denied their Consubstantiality or Unity and Sameness of Nature The Sabellians who denied the distinction of Persons but asserted the Sameness Unity and Singularity of Nature which they thought sufficiently proved One Person as well as One Nature as no doubt but it does confuted the Arian Dissimilitude of Nature by what our Saviour says I and my Father are one which they said could be the Language of none but of a Nature conscious to it self of its own Identity and Sameness which
he allows to be a good Argument against the Arians which he could not have done had he not allowed this Consciousness in the Trinity but then observes That the Arians did as effâ—ctually consute them as to the distinction of Persons and thus between them both the Catholick Faith of a real distinction of Persons in the Sameness and Conscious Unity of Nature was vindicated In short If the whole Divine Nature is conscious to it self as every Created Mind is conscious to all that is in it self and the Three Divine Persons subsist in the Individual Unity of the same Nature then these Divine Persons must be intimately and mutually conscious to each other as a Mind its Word and Spirit are and however Men please to philosophize about this as to the prius posterius whether they will make the Unity of Nature the cause of this mutual Consciousness and therefore in order of Nature prior to it or make mutual Consciousness not the cause of this Unity but the Essential Union of Three Distinct Subsisting Persons in the Unity of the same Individual Nature I will not contend with any Man which of these speak most properly Consciousness is the Unity of an Intelligent Nature and the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature and the Conscious Unity of Nature in Three Distinct Persons is the same thing We cannot conceive the Unity of a Mind without Consciousness nor any other kind of Unity of a Mind but a Conscious Unity nor can we conceive an Internal Essential Consciousness without an Essential Unity and if the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature is the Consciousness of Nature I cannot see why we may not say That it is at least One Notion of the Unity of Nature too But to return where I left off if this may be called a a Digression what I have now said is sufficient to shew how necessary this Doctrine of Relations is to give us a sensible notion of a Trinity in Unity To assert a Real Trinity we must assert Three Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Intelligent Persons neither of which is each other and each of which is by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God But this say Sabellians Arians and Socinians is to assert Three Gods which the Catholick Church always abhorred the thoughts of Now how the Fathers answered this Charge and vindicated the Divine Unity in a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons I have already particularly shown as by the Consubstantiality the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature whole of whole their Inseparability and Unity of Operation but we can form no distinct Idea of all this but only among Personal Subsisting Relatives of the same Individual Nature Whatever is not this is a meer Specifick Consubstantiality and Identity of Nature and an External Union how inseparable soever it be which must make a number of Individuals in the Divine as well as Human Nature but now it is plain to a Demonstration That if God hath an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Subsisting Spirit they can be but One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and Word and Spirit are One and therefore all Three but One God as a Man with his Mind and Word and Spirit iâ— but One Man which is an Intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Individual Essence and Godhead For though the Word of God be a Person which a Mâ—n's Word is not yet if his true Nature and Character is the Word he is the same to the Eternal Mind which a Man's Word is to his Created Mind and therefore God and his Living Subsisting Word must be One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and his Word are One a Word must be conceived and begotten of the Mind and can have no other Substance if it be a Living Substantial Word but that of the Mind and if it be a perfect Word the perfect Image of the Mind it must be whole of whole all that the Mind is for the whole Mind is in its perfect Word and Image and lives and subsists in it and the whole Word in the Mind So that the Câ—eternity the Coequality the Consubstantiality the Identity the Inseparability the Unity of Operation between God and his Word is so far from being Jargon Contradiction Unintelligible Nonsense that iâ— God have an Eternal Word it is self-evident that thus it must be When we contemplate the Consubstantiality of Father and Son under the notion of Substance we can form no Idea of a whole which is of a whole that the Father should communicate his whole Essence and Substance to the Son and be the whole himself and this is no great wonder since we can form no Idea at all of the Divine Substance but we can very well understand That the Whole Mind must be in its Word that the Eternal Mind and its Word must be Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal Two but perfectly the same inseparably in each other for all this is included in the very Relation and Notion of a Mind and its Word I 'm sure a Living Subsisting Word which is not Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal with that Eternal Mind whose Word it is that a Mind should be without its Word that an Infinite Eternal Mind which is perfect Life and Being should have a vanishing perishing Word as Man has not a living subsisting Word that a Mind and its Word should ever be parted that the Word should not be and subsist in the Mind and the Mind in the Word I say all this contradicts all the Notions we have of a Mind and its Word We cannot immediately and directly contemplate the Divine Nature and Essence which is so infinitely above us and therefore we must contemplate it in such Ideas and Representations as God himself makes of it and if they are such as we can form an intelligible notion of we have no reason to complain of unintelligible Mysteries and Contradictions though when we reduce it into Terms of Art we find our Minds confounded and perplext and unable to form any distinct and easy Ideas The Arians to avoid the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father would not allow the Term Substance to be used of God the Catholick Fathers proved that Substance is in Scripture used concerning God and that the Arians could not reasonably reject it because they used it themselves for though they would not own the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father they taught that he was of another Substance which still is to own Substance in God But though God be in the most true and absolute sense perfect Essence and Being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to St. Ambrose his derivation of the Word which shews what he meant by it whether it shews his skill in Greek or not that Essence and Substance is that which always is and that which always is is God and therefore God is Essence and Substance and a
Consubstantial Son is a true and real Son for which reason as he observes the Arians would not allow the Son to be Consubstantial because they would not allow him to be a true genuine Son and for this very reason the Nicene Fathers inserted the Homoousion in their Creed But yet if we would rightly conceive of God of Father Son and Holy Ghost of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity we must not form our Notions by the Ideas of Substance and Consubstantiality which we have no distinct conceptions of but we must learn their Unity Distinction and Consubstantiality from those Characters the Scripture gives of Father Son and Holy Ghost This Rule St. Ambrose expressly gives us with reference to the Son and the Reason is the same as to the other Divine Persons If we would avoid Error says that Father let us attend to those Characters the Scripture gives us to help us to understand what and who the Son is He is called the Word the Son the Power of God the Wisdom of God all this we can understand and not only St. Ambrose but all the other Catholick Fathers as I have already shewn prove the Consubstantiality Coeternity Coequality Unity and Distinction of Father and Son from these Names and Characters which they understood in a true and proper sense for a Living Subsisting Son and Word and Power and Wisdom and there is no difficulty in conceiving all this if we contemplate it in these Characters nay it is impossible to conceive otherwise of it As impossible as it is to form any notion at all of those Philosophical Terms whereby this Mystery is commonly represented when we abstract them from those sensible Characters and Ideas which the Scripture has given us and begin our Inquiries with them It will be of great use to represent this matter plainly that every man may see what it is that obscures and perplexes the Doctrine of the Trinity and confounds mens notions about it to the great scandal of the Christian Religion and the disturbance of the Christian Church The great difficulty concerns the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity that they are really and distinctly Three and essentially One And this is represented by One Nature Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases and yet Hypostasis signifies Substance and every Divine Hypostasis is the whole Divine Essence and Substance Now if we immediately contemplate this Mystery under the notion of Substance it is impossible for us to conceive One Substance and Three Hypostases that is in some sense Three Substances or which is all One as to the difficulty of conceiving it though the form of Expression is more Catholick Three each of which is the whole Essence and Substance and neither of them is each other we may turn over our Minds as long as we please and change Words and Phrases but we can find no Idea to answer these or any other words of this nature But now if instead of Essence and Hypostasis we put Mind and its Word we can form a very intelligible notion of this Unity and Distinction and prove that Unity of Substance and Distinction of Hypostases which we cannot immediately and directly form any notion of For Eternal Original Mind and its Living Subsisting Word are certainly Two and neither are nor can be each other the Mind cannot be its own Living Word nor the Word the Mind whose Word it is and yet we must all grant that Eternal Mind is the most Real Being Essence Substance and that a Living Subsisting Word is Life Being Substance and the very same Life and Substance that the Mind is and all that the Mind is for a perfect Living Word can have no other Life and Substance but that of the Mind and must be all the same that the Mind is The Eternal Generation of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father Life of Life Substance of Substance Whole of Whole is impossible to be conceived as immediately applied to the notion of Substance but the Generation of the Word Whole of Whole is very conceivable for the Mind must beget its own Word as we feel in our selves and a Mind which is perfect Life and Substance if it begets its Word must beget a Living Subsisting Substantial Word the perfect Image of its own Life and Substance And as impossible as it is to conceive much more to express in words this Mystery of the Eternal Generation yet the necessary relation between a Mind and its Word proves that thus it is we feel it in our selves though we are as perfectly ignorant how our Mind begets its dying vanishing Word as how the Eternal Mind begets an Eternal Living Subsisting Word And the Generation of the Word includes in it all the Properties of the Divine Generation that it is Eternal for an Eternal Mind can never be without its Word that it is without any Corporeal Passions or Esslux or Division begotten in the Mind and inseparable from it Now if we conceive after the same manner of the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit can any man deny this to be an Intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity though we can form no distinct Idea of One Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases For if we can conceive Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Original Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit to be Essentially One and Three the Catholick Faith is secured though we do not so well understand the distinction between those Abstract Metaphysical Terms of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis especially when applied to the Unity and Distinction of the Eternal Godhead which is above all Terms of Art The Catholick Faith is That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but yet there are not Three Gods but One God and this the Doctrine of the Divine Relations gives us a very intelligible notion of for we cannot conceive otherwise of the Eternal Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit but that each of them are True and Perfect God and yet a Mind its Word and Spirit can be but One and therefore but One God But One Substance and Three Hypostases is but a secondary notion of a Trinity in Unity to secure the Catholick Faith against the Sabellian and Arian Heresies Against the Sabellians the Catholick Fathers asserted Three Hypostases against the Arians One Substance and the Essential Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove both the One Substance and Three Hypostases but though One Substance and Three Hypostases be the Catholick Language yet those Men begin at the wrong end who think to form an intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity from these abstract Metaphysical Terms This is not the Language of the Scripture nor have we any Idea to answer these Terms of One Substance in Three distinct Hypostases when we consider them by themselves without relation to the Divine Nature to which alone these
Terms can belong for there is no such thing in created Nature and therefore we can have no Idea of it It is abundantly sufficient in this Case that we have a clear and distinct Notion of One Substance and Three Hypostases in the Essential Unity and Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost Three subsisting Relations in One Individual Essence and Substance though when we abstractedly consider these Terms of One Substance and Three Hypostases we can form no consistent Notion or Idea of it And now let our Socinian Adversaries who talk so loud of Absurdities Contradictions Nonsense false Counting and Tritheism try their skill to make good these Charges against the Divine subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Individual Essence SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the Difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity BUT since one Nature and Essence and Three Hypostases or Persons is the Catholick Language and necessary to guard the Faith from those Two Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism it will be necessary to consider how to apply these Ecclesiastical Terms to the Three and One in the ever Blessed Trinity And here were I so disposed I might enter into a very large and perplext Dispute but my design as far as possibly I can attain it is only to explain what the Catholick Fathers meant by these Terms and to give a plain and sensible Notion of them And after what I have already so largely discoursed concerning Nature and Hypostasis I have little more to do than to compare them together and to shew in what the Catholick Fathers placed this Distinction And as nothing is of greater consequence than rightly to understand this matter so nothing requires greater Caution nor greater Application of Mind Whosoever is conversant in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers must acknowledge it not only reasonable but necessary to distinguish between their Faith and their Philosophy Their Faith which they received srom the Scriptures and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church is plain and simple and the same in all That there is but One God who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit that Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself True and Perfect God and all but One God which is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity that they are in a true and proper Sense Three and One This is the Catholick Faith wherein they all agree but then those Philosophical Terms which the importunities of Hereticks who corrupted either the Faith of the Unity or Trinity forced them to use in the Explication of this Mystery are of a different Consideration These have not always been the same nor have all agreed in them and the wisest Men have owned great Improprieties in them all when applied to this Sacred Mystery and indeed it is impossible to be otherwise for that infinite Difference and Diversity there is between the Divine and Humane Nature nay all created Nature can never admit of any Common Terms proper to express both The most perfect Creatures bear only some imperfect Analogy and Resemblance to what we conceive of God and therefore when we apply such Words and Terms to the Divine Naturâ— as are borrowed from Creatures and we have no other we must understand them only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and when we expound such Terms as are used by the Catholick Fathers in such an accommodated Sense we must apply them no further than that particular Matter they intended to represent by them I have already shâ—wn this in several particular Passages relating to the Homoousion but now I am more particularly to consider the difference between Essence and Hypostasis and I shall only shew how the matter of fact stands what has occasioned this difficulty what the true state of the Controversy is and how we may form some sensible notion of this Distinction and if I should mistake in so nice a Point as this I hope it will be a pardonable Mistake while I make no change in the Catholick Faith and intend it only as an Essay if it be possible to silence or qualify the Dispute about words The Greek Fathers attribute all the Heresies relating to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation to this one Mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same for then if there be but One Essence in the Blessed Trinity there must consequently be but One Hypostasis which is Sabellianism or if there be Three Hypostases there must be Three Natures and Essences either in the Arian or Tritheistick Notion Thus with reference to the Incarnation two Natures must be two Persons or Hypostases as Nestorius taught or One Person must be but One mixt and compounded Nature too which was the Heresy of Eutyches This some Fathers thought a fundamental Error in Philosophy introduced by Aristotle who makes the first Substance which is the only true and proper Substance to be that which is predicated of no Subject nor is in any Subject that is what we call a Subsisting Individual as this Man or this Horse And therefore Theorianus observes That the Catholick Fathers understood Essence and Hypostasis in a very different sense from the Greek Philosophers that is by Essence and Substance they did not mean one singular Individuum or singular Nature and Substance as Aristotle did but a common Nature not a common Notion as Genus or Species which are Aristotle's second Substances but a common Subsisting Nature which is one and the same whole and perfect in every Individual of the same kind And what Aristotle call'd his first Substance a singular Subsisting Nature that they called Hypostasis a common Subsisting Nature with its individuating Characters and Properties It is evident some Ages past before these words Essence and Hypostasis were thus nicely distinguished or at least before this Distinction was so unanimously received for as I have already observed these Words were used very promiscuously which occasioned the Alexandrian Schism and it does not appear to me that this Distinction was setled by Athanasius and the Bishops with him in that Synod as some seem to think though soon after it generally prevailed as we may learn from St. Basil Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril of Alexandria Damascen Leontius Theorianus Theodorus Abucara Ignatius Sinaita and generally all the Catholick Writers of the Eutychian and Severian Age who universally agree in this That Essence and Hypostasis differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which is Universal differs from what is Proper and Singular Now so far these Fathers were certainly in the right That if they must apply Philosophical Terms to Divine Mysteries which the Cavilling Objections of Hereticks made necessary there was an absolute necessity for them to change their signification for as there is nothing common to
Notions by common to God and Creatures These Creature-Ideas and Creature Terms can be applied to God only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and that a very imperfect one too 2. Let us then consider how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the explication of this Mystery and what they intended to represent by them I shall do this in as few words as possibly I can that what I have to say may be the more easily understood They tell us That all Nature is common that Human Nature is common to all Mankind and the Divine Nature common to all the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost not that they thought the Divinity or Godhead a common Nature merely as Human Nature is common but there is this Analogy between them that the Divine Nature is not singular or does not subsist in Singularity but in Three Hypostases as Human Nature is common because it is not confined to one but is in all Human Hypostases and that the Divine Nature is perfectly and invariably the same in each Hypostasis as the Human Nature is which for this Reason is called a common not a particular Nature which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity not Singularity of Nature in the Blessed Trinity Thus far the Analogy holds which is a direct opposition both to Sabellianism and Arianism but it reaches no farther for the Divine Nature is not a common Specifick Nature as all Created Nature is common for the Godhead is no Species that is there is and can be but One God Which I have already at large shewn to be the Sense of the Fathers They expresly teach That the Divine Nature is an Individual Nature but not Singular it is common as being whole and perfect in more Hypostases than One which excludes Singularity but it is one whole Entire Individual Nature so one Individual as Human Nature is one in one Man For though Individual and Singular is the same in Creatures it is not so in the Divine Nature nor can it be if the Catholick Faith be One Nature One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases And if we can form any sensible Notion of this it will silence all the pretences of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Tritheism which are so constantly objected against this Venerable Mystery And therefore I shall briefly inquire 1. What that One Divinity is which is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost and how it is common 2. How this common Nature is in a strict and proper Sense One Individual Nature And I think this is easily accounted for from the Doctrine of the Fathers 1. As for the first This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father the Natura Patris the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father who is the Eternal Self-originated Mind which has no Second and therefore there can be no other no Second or Third Divinity Now this One Divine Nature One Divinity of the Father is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit Common I say not merely as Human Nature is common to all Men because it is the same in all perfectly the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be not the same Individual Nature in all which is singular and incommunicable in Creatures but it is common by a perfect communication whole of whole that it is no New Divinity but the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son who is therefore so often as I observed above called the Nature and Divinity and Mind of the Father his Image and Character and that which is signified by all this his Eternal Living Omnipotent Word I do not intend to prove all this over again which I have abundantly proved already but only to put every thing into its proper place that we may view the Whole in a true light This Divine Nature then of the Father which is but One is that One Divinity which is by an Eternal Ineffable Generation communicated whole and perfect to the Son and by a like Eternal and Ineffable Procession to the Holy Spirit But still the difficulty is How this is One Nature which is not Singular nor subsists in Singularity but in Three Proper Distinct Compleat Hypostases or Persons 2. And therefore rightly to apprehend this we must inquire into the Notion of One Individual Nature Now that which is most obvious and which the Fathers perpetually alledge in justification of the Divine Unity is That an Individual is an undivided Nature and therefore the One Divinity of the Father though actually communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit is One Individual Divinity because it is communicated whole and perfect without Division or Separation and that which is undivided is One. But though to be undivided be essential to the Notion of an Individual Nature yet there must be something else to compleat this Notion or at least to give us a more distinct conception of it Could Human Nature propagate it self whole and compleat to Two or Three without any division or separation of Substance this could not make it One Individual Nature though they were undivided for One Individual Nature is One whole Compleat Nature without division which is all that is essential to such a Being and is this all but once and that without division But how will this agree with the Notion of One Divinity or One Individual Divine Nature For does not the One Divine Nature which is the Divinity of the Father subsist compleatly and distinctly though without division and separation in the Son and Holy Ghost and will you call this One Individual Nature which is not singularly in One but subsists distinctly in Three Yes I will because all these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One Divinity and therefore are One Individual Divinity in Three for an Individual Nature is that which without division has all that is essential to such a Nature Well But is not the Father then in his own Person True and Perfect God and the Son True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God that is Have not each of these Divine Persons all the Divine Perfections included in the Notion and Idea of God And are they not Three who have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature and how then is this One Individual Nature I answer When I say That One Individual Nature is that which has all that is essential to such a Nature by Essential I mean not only Essential Properties Qualities Powers and Perfections which are commonly called Nature there being no other notion of Nature in Created Beings but Essential Productions too which when there is any such thing are as essential to Nature as any other Properties or Perfections In the first Sense of Essential the Divine Nature is not singular but communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by Father
that there is but One Divinity the second shews the distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature But then which is what I intended in all this this very distinction proves one individual Divinity because it is in the individual Unity of the same Numerical not Specifick Nature for all essential Processions as the Eternal Word and Spirit are which cannot so much as in Thought be separated from Original Mind must continue in the Unity of the same individual Nature This is what the Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One common Divinity which is individually One in Three perfect Hypostases Father Son and Holy Ghost The Divinity of the Father of Eternal Self-originated Mind is the common Divinity communicated to the Eternal Word and Spirit in the individual Unity of Nature 2. Now this will give us some Notion of the distinction of Nature and Persons in the Eternal Godhead I say Persons not Person which I take to be the fundamental Mistake which has obscured and perplex'd this Mystery Men have rack'd their Inventions to find out some distinction between Nature and Person in every single Person in the Godhead which it is certain these Fathers never thought of though their Attempt to distinguish between Nature and Person in every Man gave some occasion to this Mistake But I have already proved both from Fathers and Schoolmen That when they spoke distinctly of each particular Person they made Person and Nature the same That the Person of the Father is the Nature of the Father and the Person of the Son the Nature of the Son Nor indeed had they any occasion to distinguish between Nature and Person in each single Person which could do no service in this Mystery For the true reason and occasion for this distinction was to reconcile the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature with a Trinity of real Hypostases or Persons how One Nature can subsist in Three distinct Hypostases and continue One Individual Nature Which had been no difficulty at all were not each Divine Person by himself the Divine Nature But how the Divine Nature should subsist whole and perfect in Three distinct Persons and not be Three distinct Natures but One Nature and One Divinity not specifically but individually and numerically One This was the difficulty they were concerned to answer which the distinction between Nature and Person in each single Person could not answer For let us suppose such a distinction as this whatever it be if the Divine Nature subsist whole and perfect in each distinct Person the difficulty still remains how the Persons are distinct and the Nature individually One As to put the Case in Human Nature whatever distinction we allow between Nature and Person in every particular Man if we allow that every Man has Human Nature as distinctly in himself as he is a distinct Person the distinction between Nature and Person can never prove the Individual Numerical Unity of Human Nature in Three Men. The Question then is Not how Nature and Person is distinguish'd in each single Person much less how Three Persons in One singular Nature are distinguished from that singular Nature which unavoidably reduces a Trinity of Persons to an unintelligible Trinity of Modes but How the Three Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity which are Three in number and each of them the Divine Nature are distinguished from that One Individual Divinity which is in them all or rather which they all are Now what I have already said seems to me to give a very intelligible Notion of this viz. That the Divine Nature which is but One is the Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its Eternal Essential Processions or Productions which as I have already shewn are but One not Singular but Individual Nature and Individual Divinity But then this One Self-originated Divinity is most certainly an Infinite Eternal Self-originated Person if Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind be a Person and these Eternal Essential Processions are Persons also if an Eternal Living Subsisting Word be a Person and an Eternal Living Subsisting Spirit be a Person and then it is evident that there are Three Eternal Subsisting Persons in the Individual Unity of Nature These Divine Processions do not multiply nor divide the Divine Nature because they are essential to an Infinite Mind and are Processions ad intra in the perfect Identity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Individual Unity of Nature but they are distinct Persons as being Eternal Subsisting Living Intelligent Processions which is all that we mean by Persons in this Mystery with reference to the Eternal Word and Spirit For these Three Divine Persons have their different Characters and Order whereby they are distinguished from each other which the Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which they meant their different manner of subsisting in the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature that though they have all the same Divinity as that signifies all Divine Perfections yet they have it after a different manner that is as they constantly explain it Vnbegotten Begotten and Proceeding as the Athanasian Creed teaches us to believe The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding This is the only distinction which the Catholick Fathers allow between the Three Divine Persons and let us consider the nature of it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actual Existence and that which does actually exist and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify that there are Three that do actually exist but after a different manner That is That the Father is Unbegotten Self-originated Divinity is God of himself without any other cause of his Being and this Self-originated Unbegotten Divinity is the Person of the Father and in the highest and most absolute sense the One God The Son is Eternally begotten of his Father's Substance and lives and subsists in him and so the Holy Ghost Eternally proceeds from Father and Son That is There is One Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its two Eternal Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of the same Nature The Father's manner of subsistence is easily understood and secures to him the Prerogative of the One True God but we must shew this a little more plainly with reference to the Son and Holy Spirit each of which is by himself True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God The right understanding of which depends upon the true stating of their different manners of subsistence And here I need only refer to what I have already discoursed concerning the difference between an Absolute Nature and Relative Subsistencies in the same Nature An Absolute Nature is a whole Compleat Nature with all that essentially belongs to such a Nature as every perfect Man has all that belongs essentially to the Nature of Man
and thus a Man begets a Man in his own Nature and Likeness and the Son which is begotten is upon all accounts as much a Man as he who begets and Father and Son are two Men And to beget and to be begotten tho they prove their Persons to be distinct yet are but External Relations not different manners of subsistence in the same Nature And thus God does not beget a Son which would be to beget a Second God For to beget and to be begotten when he who begets begets in an absolute sense all the same that he is himself makes two of the same kind And therefore we must observe That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Character and Property of the Father does not only signify that he has no cause of his Being and Nature but that what he is he is absolutely in himself has an Absolute not a Relative Nature and Subsistence and so consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Property of the Son signifies that his Being and Nature is Relative not only that he receives his Being and Nature from his Father but that he so receives it as to be a Relative Subsistence in his Father's Nature and the like may be said of the Procession of the Holy Ghost As to shew this more particularly God begets a Son his own perfect Image and Likeness but he does not beget his own Absolute Nature in his Son as Man does though he begets his Son of his own Nature and Substance as for instance God is Perfect Absolute Original Mind not only as Original is opposed to what has a Cause and a Beginning but as opposed to an Image but God does not beget an Absolute Original Mind in his Son but only his own Eternal Essential Word which is the Perfect Living Image of Eternal Self-originated Mind and is it self Eternal Infinite Mind in the Eternal Word but is in its own proper Character the Eternal Word of the Eternal Mind not originally an Eternal Mind it self It has all the Perfections of an Eternal Mind as a Perfect Word must of necessity have which is the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature but it has all these Perfections not as Original Mind but as a Begotten Word which is a different Mode of Subsistence and a sensible distinction between the Eternal Mind and its Word in the perfect Identity of Nature This I take to be a True and Intelligible Account of these different manners of Subsistence which distinguish the Divine Persons in the perfect Unity of Nature that they have all the same Nature and same Perfections but after a different manner which can never be understood in Absolute Natures and Persons for three Men though Father Son and Grandson have all of them Human Nature after the very same manner but in an Absolute Nature and Relative Essential Processions this is to be understood and proves a real distinction and perfect Unity It is evident to all Men that the Mind and its Word are Two and it is as evident that Life Wisdom Knowledge are in Absolute Original Mind after another manner than they are in its Word and yet the very Notion of a Mind and its Word and that Essential Relation that is between them makes it a contradiction to say that any other Life Wisdom Knowledge can be in the Word than what is in the Mind which would be to say That the Word is not the Word of the Mind if it have any thing that is not in the Mind For a Natural Word can have nothing but what is in the Mind and is no farther a Word than it is the Natural Image of the Mind And the like may be said concerning the Holy Spirit which hath all the same Divine Perfections but in a different manner from Original Mind and its Word as eternally proceeding from both This is the Account which the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of Nature and Distinction of Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity which answers the Objections of our Sabellian Arian and Socinian Adversaries and vindicates those Catholick Forms of Speech which they charge with Tritheism Contradiction and Nonsense As to shew this briefly in one view for each part of it has been sufficiently confirmed already The Catholick Faith teaches us That there is but One God and this is demonstrable from the Doctrine of these Fathers For in this Account I have now given there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Absolute Divinity One Divine Nature and therefore but One God But say our Adversaries One God in Natural Religion and according to the general Sense of Mankind signifies One Person who is God And this also in some sense has always been owned by the Catholick Church That as there is but One Absolute Divinity so the Person of the Father who is this One Absolute Divinity is this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is but One Person who is God in this Absolute Sense because there is but One Father who as they often speak is the Fountain of the Deity that is of the Divine Processions of the Son and Holy Spirit He is the Whole Absolute Divinity himself and whatever is Divine Eternally and Essentially proceeds from him in the Unity of his own Nature But at this rate what Divinity do we leave for the Son and the Holy Spirit Truly the very same by Eternal Generation and Procession which is originally and absolutely in the Father For it is the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son and Holy Spirit as the Fathers constantly own and as of necessity it must be because there is no other This Eternal Generation and Procession has always been owned as an ineffable Mystery which we must believe upon the Authority of the Scriptures without pretending to know how God begets an Eternal Son or how the Eternal Spirit proceeds from Father and Son which we confess we have no Notion of but we know likewise That this is no reason to reject this Faith no more than it is a reason to reject the belief of an Eternal Self-originated Being because though it be demonstrable That there must be an Eternal First Cause of all things which has no Cause of its own Being but an Eternal necessary Nature yet we can no more conceive this than we can an Eternal Generation and Procession Supposing therefore without disputing that matter at present that God has an Eternal Son that Eternal Self-originated Mind has an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Spirit it is evident that this Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit must have all the same Perfections of the Eternal Mind must be all that the Eternal Mind is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting its being an Absolute Self-originated Mind Now if he be God who has the whole Divine Nature and Perfections then the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God who by Eternal Generation and Procession have that same
the Son of this One God the Father and the Spirit of God be the Spirit of this same One God And though the Son of God be God and the Spirit of God be God that is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons and therefore can no more be multiplied with the Persons than the Divine Nature is The Son of God is God but it is Authoritate Paternae Naturae as St. Hilary speaks not by any Absolute Godhead of his own but in right of his Father's Nature and Divinity which he received by an Eternal Generation Thus it must be where there is but One Absolute Nature with its Internal Processions Let us put the Case in a Human Mind and suppose That its Word and Spirit were Distinct Living Intelligent Hypostases in the Mind Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature perfectly the same with the Mind but distinct Hypostases but would any one for this Reason call these Three Three Men or Three Minds And yet such a Living Subsisting Word and a Living Subsisting Spirit would as perfectly have the Nature of the Mind as the Mind it self but neither of them would be an absolute Mind but one the Word of the Mind and the other the Spirit of the Mind not Three Minds but One Mind with its Essential Word and Spirit This though an Imaginary Case gives us a sensible representation of the difference between the Eternal Mind and its Eternal Word and Spirit which I freely acknowledge cannot properly be called Three Infinite Minds and Spirits for though the Eternal Subsisting Word is an Infinite Mind and so the Eternal Subsisting Spirit yet Mind as well as God is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons which is Identically one and the same in all This as I take it is what some Learned and truly Catholick Writers mean in distinguishing the several Acceptations of this Name God That sometimes it signifies the Divine Nature and Essence in general as when we say The Trinity is One God that is One Divinity that there is but One Divine Nature and Essence in all the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity Sometimes it signifies Personally as when we say The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that is the Person of the Father the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost is God But then they are still forced to acknowledge that the Name God is not predicated Vnivocally of all Three Persons but that the Father is God in a more excellent and eminent Sense than the Son is God or the Holy Ghost God as being God of himself an Unbegotten Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit Upon which account he is so often by the Catholick Fathers called the One God and the only True God Now all this is very True and very Catholick but with all submission it seems to me to be an inconvenient way of speaking which perplexes the Article with different Senses and is liable to great Cavils and Misconstructions as the Examples of Dr. Payn and the Author of the 28 Propositions witness and when most dexterously managed will sooner silence than convince an Adversary The Divine Essence must be considered only as in the Divine Persons when we say That the Trinity is One God the true meaning is That Three Persons are One God and the general abstract Notion of the Unity of Essence does not account for this but the Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Thus to say That the Father is God in the highest sense of that Name God and that He alone strictly speaking is a Being absolutely perfect because he alone is Self-existent and all other Beings even the Son and Holy Ghost are from him may be expounded to a very Catholick Sense and was certainly so meant but is liable to great Cavils when Men take more pains to pick Quarrels with Words than to understand an Author An Absolutely Perfect God and a God that wants any Perfection sounds not only like Two Gods but like Gods of different Kinds for every diversity of Nature alters the Species All that is meant by this is certainly True and Catholick and taught in express words by the Primitive Fathers That the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father that the Son is all that the Father is excepting his being the Father and unbegotten that is excepting Paternity and Self-existence or Self-origination and that upon this Account the Father is eminently called the One God the Son God of God that is God as the Son of God What I have now discoursed seems to me to give the fairest Account of this Matter I take the Name God always to signify a Person in whom the Divine Nature is not the Divinity in the Abstract and then the Name God must belong to any Person after the same manner as the Divine Nature is his that is he must be called God in no other sense than as he is God Now as I have already shewn there is but One Absolute Divinity with Two Internal Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature And if we make this our Rule of Speaking as we must do if this be the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and we will fit our words to the nature of things then it is very plain That the Name God absolutely belongs only to him who is this Absolute Divinity that is the Person of the Father that no other Person is God in recto absolutely and simply God but only he that he is the One God the only True God as both the Scripture and Fathers own But what becomes then of the Son and Holy Ghost Is not the Son God and the Spirit God Yes the Name and Title of God belongs to them as the Divine Nature does that is not absolutely as to the Absolute Divinity but as to Divine Processions to Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Godhead that is the Second Person in the Trinity is God but not in recto as God signifies that Person who is the Divinity but as the Son of God as habens Deitatem having the Divinity not absolutely and originally but by Communication by Eternal Generation And so the Holy Spirit is not absolutely God but the Spirit of God and God only as the Spirit of God as an Internal Procession in the Divine Nature But in what sense then can we say That the Trinity is One God or that Three Persons are One God Must we not necessarily own that God in these Propositions is taken Essentially for the Deity in the abstract and not as considered in any One Person For will we say That the Trinity or Three Persons are but One Person No! and yet in this Proposition The Trinity is One God by One God I understand One who is absolutely God One Absolute Divinity which is the Father who has indeed a Son and Spirit in the Unity of his
own Nature and Godhead each of which is True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Divine Subsisting Relations in the One Absolute Godhead of the Father which does not multiply the Name nor Nature of God This is the Account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons and therefore this must be the Catholick Sense of this Proposition And here it will be proper to observe That in the Account they give of the Unity of God that is the Unity in Trinity they indifferently assign One Divinity and One Father as the Reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One God because there is One Divinity and there is One God because there is One Father which are not two different Reasons but one and the same from whence it necessarily follows That this One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father and that this One God in Trinity is the Father for One God must necessarily signify One Person when the Father is the One God So that the Father who is the One Absolute Divinity is the One God who ceases not to be the One God as St. Hilary and others constantly teach by having a Son and Holy Spirit who receive all from him live and subsist in him and are eternally and inseparably One with him Thus we are taught in the Athanasian Creed to worship One God in Trinity that is the Eternal Father who is the One God with his Son and Holy Spirit and the Trinity in Vnity that is Father Son and Holy Ghost not Three Gods but One in the Unity of the Father's Godhead For the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty Coeternal There is but One Godhead One Glory One Majesty and that is the Godhead Glory and Majesty of the Father and the Son and Spirit are in the Godhead Glory Majesty of the Father as Internal Processions Living Subsisting Relations in the Father's Godhead This Account which I confess is the only Account of this Matter that I can understand whatever other Faults it may have which I do not yet see I 'm sure is perfectly Orthodox is neither Tritheism Sabellianism Arianism nor Socinianism but the True Catholick Faith of a Trinity in Unity Here is but One Absolute Divinity but One Father with his Eternal Son and Spirit in the Unity of his own Nature and Godhead and therefore but One God For Three Gods must be Three Absolute Divinities without any Internal Relation or dependence on each other Internal Relations though Real Subsisting Relations can't multiply Nature and therefore can't multiply Gods Here are Three Real Proper Living Intelligent Substantial Divine Persons and therefore no Sabellianism not One Personal God with three Names Offices Manifestations Modes Powers Parts Here are Three truly Divine Persons each of which is by himself or in his own Person True and Perfect God The Father God of himself Unbegottan Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit The Son the Son of God and True and Perfect God as the Son of God The Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Son and True and Perfect God as the Spirit of God So that here is neither Arianism Macedonianism nor Socinianism no Made or Created Nature no Creature in the Ever Blessed Trinity No say our Arian and Socinian Adversaries neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost according to this Hypothesis are True and Perfect God as the Father is Neither of them have Self-existence or a Fecundity of Nature which are thought great Perfections in the Father but the Son is not of himself but begotten of his Father nor is the Spirit of himself but proceeds from Father and Son and neither of them have a Son or Spirit of their own as the Father has All this I readily grant for it is the Catholick Faith that the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Father that he never was a Son and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Son that he never was nor can be a Father and so of the Holy Spirit That there is but One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts as the Athanasian Creed teaches This proves indeed as we all own that neither the Son nor Spirit are absolutely God an Absolute Divinity as the Father is but only Divine Processions an Absolute Divinity has a Fecundity of Nature Absolute Original Mind according to this Hypothesis must have its Word and Spirit in the Unity of its Nature but the Word being no Absolute Nature can't beget another Word nor the Spirit another Spirit So that this Objection only delivers us from the Charge of Tritheism by proving Father Son and Holy Ghost to be but One Divinity One God For if the Son were as absolutely God as the Father is there is no account to be given why he should not beget a Son as his Father did him as we see it is among Men where the Son begets a Son and becomes a Father and thus there could be no possible end of Divine Generations but these are Generations ad extra which give as compleat and absolute a Nature and absolute Subsistence to the Son as the Father has but Internal Essential Relations are in the Individual Unity of Nature and therefore cannot multiply when Nature has all that is essential to it So that Self-existence and Generation do not belong to the Character of a Son and with the Catholick Church we teach That the Son of God is God only as the Son and it would be Heresy to ascribe the peculiar Prerogatives of the Father to him And then it can be no Objection against the Divinity of the Son that he has not what is peculiar and proper only to the Person of the Father as Self-existence and Generation is Self-existence Self-origination to have no cause of his Being I grant is essential to the Idea of a God And Eternal and Necessary Existence to the Notion of any Person who is in any sense God for he who ever began to be and subsists precariously can in no sense be God But then though Self-existence be essential to the Notion of an Absolute Divinity yet a Person who is a Son and therefore not Self-originated but eternally begotten of a Self-originated Father and subsists eternally and necessarily as an Essential Procession and Relation in a Self-originated Nature must be the Son of God and God the Son True and Perfect God as the Eternal Necessary Essential Procession of a Self-originated Divinity For what is internally and essentially related to a Self-existent Nature can be no Creature and therefore must be True and Perfect God Thus to proceed The same Rule of speaking if Men be peaceably and charitably disposed to understand one another will easily reconcile that
late warm Dispute about One Substance and Three Substances in the Unity of the Godhead for the Dispute is the very same in other words with One Nature and Three Persons The Nicene Fathers who asserted the Homoousion the One Nature and Substance of Father and Son did not by this mean One Singular Substance as I have abundantly shewn and those who assert Three Substances in opposition to Sabellianism do not mean Three Absolute nor Three divided and separated Substances but One Individual Substance as there is One Individual Nature in Three Substantial Subsisting Persons That is There is but One Absolute Substance with Two Relative Substantial Procefsions in the Individual Unity of the same One Substance Which the Schools make no scruple to call Three Relative Substances All Catholick Writers both Ancient and Modern own that the Father is Substance the Son Substance and the Holy Ghost Substance but yet are cautious of saying Three Substances nor will they say ter Vna thrice One Substance because Number does not belong to the Nature but to the Persons though at the same time they own that Deus trinus signifies tria supposita Deitatis These seem to be great Niceties and Arbitrary Distinctions without any reason and foundation in Nature for what difference is there between Three Substances and Three Relative Substances For Relative Substances are Substances What difference between Three Substances and tria supposita when suppositum is only another name for Substance and so St. Hilary as I have observed called them tres substantias tria in substantia Three Substances and Three in Substance When there are Three each of which is in his own Person Substance and neither of them each other what difference is there between saying Tres in una substantia ter una substantia Three in One Substance and thrice Once Substance Marius Victorinus as I observed before ventures to say ter ipsa Substantia not ter una as it is mistaken in a late Treatise by trusting too much to memory thrice the very same Substance now thrice the same One Substance is thrice One Substance where the Number belongs to the Essence and Substance which is Aquinas's Objection against it But the whole Account of this must be resolved into the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Substance when it stands by it self signifies Absolutely and so Three Substances are Three Absolute Substances Three Human Substances Three Humanities and Three Divine Substances Three Divinities and therefore we must not without great caution say Three Substances in the Trinity for fear of asserting Three Gods but yet we must own that each Person is True and Perfect Substance and both the Fathers and Schools own this and Three in Substance are Three Substances but not Three Absolute but Relative Substances Three Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Divine Essence and Substance Though as I have more than once observed in proper speaking we cannot say Three Relative Substances for though the Father speaks a Relation to the Son and Holy Spirit it is as he is the Fountain of the Deity Original Absolute Divinity Essence Substance in his own Person not a Relative Subsistence and therefore in the Blessed Trinity there is One Absolute Substance Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Substances as there are Two Internal Substantial Relations in the Unity of the same Substance And to prevent Mistakes I must here observe That by Absolute we do not mean Compleat and Perfect for so the Son is Absolute Substance and the Holy Spirit Absolute Substance Compleat and Perfect Substance as each of them in his own Person is True and Perfect God in which Sense St. Austin tells us that persona ad se dicitur that Person is predicated absolutely that every Person as considered in himself is a Person and not merely as related to another but when we say that there is but One Absolute Substance in the Godhead by Absolute we mean Original as I have already explained it as distinguished from Relative Processions as the Original is distinguished from the Image though the Image if a Living Subsisting Image is as Compleat and Perfect Nature and Substance as the Original is And this is the only difference I know between Substance Nature Essence and Suppositum Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thing Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence and the like That the first signify Absolutely or as the Schools speak the Form that is an Original Substance Nature and Essence and therefore these must not be multiplied in the Divinity by saying Three Substances Natures or Essences for fear of a Diversity or Number of Divinities and Gods The other Terms though they do not in common use signify Relatively as Subject Suppositum Thing Being Subsistence do not yet they signify any thing that really is that has a Compleat Actual Subsistence of its own and therefore are applicable to all substantial relative Processions which are compleat Subsistencies Things Beings as well as to original Nature and Substance And both the Fathers and Schools for this reason owned the Three Divine Persons to be Three Things Three Beings Tres Entes Tria Entia Tres Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scruple not the use of any such transcendental Terms as do not necessarily multiply the absolute and original Form Thus the One Substance of the Godhead either signifies the absolute Divinity of the Father and this is but One and can never be Ter Vna Thrice One or it signifies the One individual undivided Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that is the absolute Divinity of the Father with his internal essential Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of Nature and this it is but One Substance for there is but One Individual Nature not Ter Vna but Tres in Vna not Thrice One Substance but Three in One Undivided Nature and Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have sometimes not so properly translated a Thrice subsisting Monad but it is a Monad with Three Hypostases which in other words is One Nature and Three Persons not One singular Nature Thrice subsisting which I cannot understand but One individual Nature and Three subsisting Hypostases Vna Substantia non Vnus Subsistens One Substance not One that subsists This Individual Nature subsists but once but in the Individual Unity of the Father's Essence and Godhead are those Eternal Substantial Subsisting Processions the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit And in this sense the One Individual Substance of the Divinity may properly enough be stiled Ter ipsa or Ter Vna Substantia Thrice the same One Substance not Thrice One Absolute Substance in which sense Aquinas rejected it but Tria Supposita Vnius Substantiae or Deitatis which is One Substance by the individual Unity and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature as I have shewn above Thus that warm Dispute among the Schoolmen about one Absolute Subsistence and Existence in the
Trinity and Three Relative Subsistencies and Existences which is managed with so much perplexing Subtilty as far as I can understand any thing by it may easily be composed after the same manner For there is but One Absolute Being and Nature in the Divinity and therefore there can be but One Absolute Subsistence and Existence as Absolute signifies not Compleat and Perfect but to subsist and exist as an Original which in the Godhead signifies a self-originated Subsistence and Existence But then to deny all relative Subsistencies and Existencies is to deny the compleat Subsistence and Existence of the Son and Spirit who are essential Relations in the Unity of the Father's Godhead and therefore subsist not as Originals but as Relatives which is the meaning of a Relative Subsistence There is but One Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Processions and therefore in this sense but One Absolute and Two not Three Relative Subsistencies which seems fairly to divide the Question between them Thus once more It is a known Rule of speaking in this Mystery That Substantives must be predicated in the Singular Number Adjectives will admit a Plural Predication and the same difference is made between Abstract and Concrete Terms There are not Three Gods but Tres Deit atem habentes there are Three who have the Divinity not Three Omnipotencies or Three Omnisciencies but Three who are Omnipotent and Omniscient And the approved reason for this is That Substantives and Abstract Terms signify the Nature Essence and Form and to multiply them is to multiply Natures but Adjectives immediately signify the Subjects Suppositums and Persons and only connote the Nature and Form which multiplies the Persons but not the Nature Now though I understand what is meant by this when applied to the Divinity yet I never could understand this Reason for it for there is no such difference between Substantive and Adjective Predications in any other Case Three men and Three who have Human Nature signify the very same thing and multiply the Form as well as the Persons Three who have Human Nature are truly and properly Three men and then the meer difference between Substantives and Adjectives cannot be a good Reason why Three who have the Divine Nature are not Three Gods But the difference between an Absolute and Relative Predication does give an account of this Substantives and Abstract Terms always signify the Form as the Schools speak that is an Absolute and Original Nature and in this Sense Number multiplies Nature as well as Persons and Three Gods are Three Absolute Original Divinities as wellas Three Divine Persons and thus it is as to Adjective Predications in all Creatures as I observed before because there is no such distinction in Creatures between an Absolute Nature and Internal Subsisting Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature and when Nature always signifies the Original Form a Substantive or Adjective Predication can make no difference but where there is such a distinction as there is in the Divinity Substantives and Adjectives do most aptly represent it because Adjectives admit of a Relative Predication and may signify a Person who has the Divine Nature as an Internal Subsisting Procession in the Divinity but is not the Absolute Divinity nor in an Absolute Sense God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Indeed in such Forms of Speech we must have more regard to the Absolute or Relative Signification than to the Substantive or Adjective Form of the Words Adjectives in an Absolute Sense must no more be multiplied than Substantives which I take to be an easier Account of the tres aeterni and unus aeternus in the Athanasian Creed than to turn it with Aquinas into tria aeterna and unum aeternum For Three Eternals whether Substantives or Adjectives in an Absolute Sense are Three Gods Three Eternal Three Intelligent Three Omniscient Persons in an Absolute Sense are Three Eternities Three Omnisciences and in this Sense there is but unus aeternus One Eternal Self Originated Person as there is but One God and on the other hand Deus or God though a Substantive may signify Relatively as it does in the Nicene Creed God of God and in this Sense some of the Schoolmen thought it very Orthodox to say Three Gods if we explained in what Sense we meant it as I observed above Tertullian did Ecce duos deos though at the same time he rejects the use of such Forms for their ambiguous Signification which might betray men into Polytheism And if God may have a Relative Signification so may Mind and Spirit too and then Three Minds and Spirits is as Orthodox as Three that have an Intelligent and Spiritual Nature In short as far as I can hitherto observe all the Catholick Rules of Speaking relating to this Mystery must be resolved into this distinction of Absolute and Relative This is the only distinction we know of in the Godhead and this we as certainly know there is as we know that there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit One Absolute Self-Originated Divinity with its Internal Essential Processions in the Individual Unity and Identity of Nature and if this be the Unity and Distinction of the Divinity this must be our Rule of Speaking also to have a due regard to the One Absolute Nature and the Relative Processions of the Godhead which will secure us both from a Sabellian Singularity and a Tritheistick Trinity of Absolute Divinities The CONCLUSION With a short Application to the Socinians I Proposed one thing more to be considered in relation to this Subject viz. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real aâ—d Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion delivers the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to But I hope after what I have already said there is no occasion for this and I will not needlesly revive old Quarrels Let but Men sincerely and heartily believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Eternal Infinite Substantial Living Intelligent Omnipotent All-wise Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God and all Three but One Divinity and One God and I will dispute with no such Orthodox Christians concerning the Philosophy of the Divine Nature which is so infinitely above our comprehension There may be a necessity for such Disputes when we have to do with Hereticks who ridicule the Catholick Faith as contradictions and absurd but when Men agree in the Faith such Disputes are of no use to them and may prove of dangerous consequence for there are too many who will be sooner disputed out of their Faith than out of their Philosophy which should teach all Catholick Christians as much as it is possible to silence all