shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Of which words more hereafter at present I only observe how intimately the Holy Spirit is acquainted with all the Secrets both of Father and Son whatever things the Father knows that the Son knows and what the Son knows that the Holy Spirit knows that is whatever the Father knows which is first said to be the Father's then the Son 's and then the Holy Spirit 's according to the Order of Persons in the adorable Trinity Thus the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love which inspires us with the love of God and gives us the reciprocal Testimonies of God's love to us For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us 5 Rom. 5. And as some of the Ancients represent it he is that love wherewith the Father and the Son love each other and therefore there is no question but that he who unites Father and Son and unites God to us and us to God by love is united to Father and Son by love himself He is that Holy Spirit who renews and sanctifies us and subdues our wills into a conformity and subjection to the will of God and therefore no doubt but he has the same will with Father and Son Thus Father Son and Holy Ghost are most intimately united in knowledge will and affection but after all this is no more than what we call a Moral Union such as may be between created Spirits which remain separate Beings still and though they are morally are not essentially One and therefore such an Union as this cannot make Father Son and Holy Ghost One God but Three agreeing and consenting Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn though they should in the most perfect manner be united in the same Faith and mutual love and affection c. yet would be Three Men still And therefore I must now shew that what is merely a Moral Union between Creatures is an essential Union between the Persons of the Ever Blessed Trinity And this I have already shewn in part The Three Divine Persons of the Ever Blessed Trinity are united in knowledge in will in love but are not united as Creatures are by an external likeness conformity agreement consent in knowledge will and affection but are so united to each other as every Man is to himself not as one Man is to another As for instance Every Man by an inward sensation feeels his own knowledge will and affections but he does not know any other Man's thoughts or will or passions by feeling them in himself as he does his own but by an external communication of thoughts and therefore though they may be morally One by an exact agreement and harmony of thoughts and passions as far as by external communication they can know what each others thoughts and passions are yet they are essentially distinct and separate But Father Son and Holy Ghost are One not by an external agreement or consent but by an internal consciousness as every Man is One with himself If I may so speak because we want proper words to express it they feel each other in themselves know the same thing by feeling each others knowledge and will and love a-like by feeling what each other wills and loves just as every Man feels his own thoughts knowledge will and passions that is are as intimate to each other and as essentially One by a mutual Self-consciousness as every Man is One with himself And the phrases and expressions of Scripture whereby the Unity or Oneness of Father Son and Holy Ghost are expressed require this sense Thus I observed before that the Son is the eternal word and wisdom of the Father and therefore as intimate to him as every Man's Reason is to himself and knows the Father not by external Revelation but as every Man knows himself But the most frequent expression whereby Christ represents this close and intimate and essential Union between his Father and him is I am in the Father and the Father in me which he repeats several times in St. Iohn's Gospel Now if we will allow this to be a proper not a metaphorical expression it can signifie no other Union than what I have now described That it is a proper and not a metaphorical expression appears from this that there is no such Union in Nature between any two other Beings as this to be in One another and a Metaphor is translated from something that is real and natural upon account of some likeness and similitude and therefore that which is like to nothing else which has no pattern and example can be no Metaphor because it alludes to nothing Now if we speak of a substantial Union or a Union of Substances what two Substances can there be in the World which can mutually be in each other or can mutually comprehend each other which is indeed a palpable contradiction as signifying at the same time to be greater and to be less than each other for in substantial Unions that which comprehends is greater than that which is comprehended that which is within any thing else is less than that which contains it and therefore for two Beings mutually to comprehend and to be comprehended by each other is to be greater and less than each other greater as they comprehend each other and less as they are comprehended So that this Oneness between the Father and the Son is such an Union as there is nothing in Nature like it and we cannot long doubt what kind of Union this is if we consider that there is but one possible way to be thus united and that is by this mutual Consciousness which I have now described If the Son be conscious in himself of all that the Father is as conscious to the knowledge to the will to the love of the Father as he is to his own by an internal sensation then the whole Father is in the Son if the Father be thus conscious to all that the Son is then the whole Son is in the Father if the Holy Ghost be thus conscious to all that is in the Father and in the Son then the Father and the Son are in the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost in the Father and the Son by this mutual Consciousness to each other This is very plain and intelligible and makes them as much One as every Man is One with himself by Self-consciousness And this is a plain demonstration that all Three Divine Persons are coessential and coequal with each other We know nothing of God but that he is an infinite Mind that is infinite Knowledge Wisdom Power Goodness And if these Three Divine Persons are all internally conscious of all these Perfections which are in each other they must all have the
same Perfections the same Knowledge Wisdom Power Goodness that is the same Nature unless that Knowledge Wisdom Goodness which we are internally conscious of and feel within ourselves be not the Perfections of our Nature whereas we may externally know those Perfections which are not ours but what we feel in ourselves is our own and therefore this mutual Consciousness makes all that is the Father 's the Son 's and all that is the Son 's the Holy Spirit 's as our Saviour speaks All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he the Spirit shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you 16 Iohn 15. And if these Three Persons be thus mutually in each other as you have already heard they must be all equal for if the Father be in the Son how can the Son be less than the Father if he comprehends the Father and all his infinite perfections If Son and Holy Ghost are in the Father and Father and Holy Ghost in the Son and Father and Son in the Holy Ghost imagine what inequality you can between them if Son and Holy Ghost are conscious to all the infinite Perfections which are in the Father and have all the Perfections they are conscious to how can Son and Holy Ghost be less perfect than the Father or then each other I am sure our Saviour attributes all his Wisdom and Knowledge and Power to his intimate conscious Knowledge of his Father which he calls seeing him which is such a knowledge as Creatures cannot have of God 5 Iohn 19.20 Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do for whatsoever things he doth those also doth the Son likewise For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doeth and he will shew him greater works than these that ye may marvel By this perfect conscious Knowledge which the Son has of the Father he has all those Perfections in himself which are in the Father he can do whatever he sees the Father do and he sees whatever the Father does but can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do He has all the Perfections which are in the Father and therefore can do whatever he sees the Father do but there is no knowledge no perfection no power in the Son which is not in the Father and which he does not receive from the Father and therefore he can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do which signifies the most perfect equality between the Father and the Son founded on the Son's seeing the Father and whatever he doth or his intimate Consciousness of all that the Father is And this is the true Notion of the Son 's being the Image of his Father The brightness of his Father's glory and the express Image of his person 1 Heb. 2. For as a dead Image and Picture represents the external Lineaments and Features of the Person whose Picture or Image it is that we can see the Person in his Picture so a living essential Image is the living essential perfections of the Father and with a conscious knowledge sees the Father in himself For this reason the Son is said to hear of his Father to see what his Father doth and to do the same to receive commandement from his Fatber to do the will of his Father and the works of his Father to finish the works which his Father gave him to do to glorifie his Father c. Which must not be expounded after the manner of Men as the Socinians expound such expressions and thence conclude the great inferiority inequality subjection of the Son to the Father such as there is between a Prince and the Ministers he employs and that therefore the Son cannot be the Supream God for the Supream God cann't be commanded taught sent on Messages to fulfil the will and pleasure of another and do nothing but what he sees done and receives Commission to do I say we must not put such a mean and servile sense on these expressions but we must expound them only to signifie that the Son receives all from the Father Life Knowledge Will Power by Eternal Generation and whatever he does he does with a Consciousness of his Father's Will and Wisdom as it were feeling the Will and Wisdom and Power of his Father in himself and this he calls hearing and seeing the works of the Father receiving Commands and doing the Works of the Father because his Nature is that to him which external Teachings ' and verbal Commands are to Men he hears he sees he does the Works and Will and Commands of his Father by being the perfect living self-conscious image of his Father's Will and Knowledge and infinite Perfections But there is one place more I must take notice of by which the Socinians think to overthrow all that I have now said that the Union between the Father and Son is not such an essential Unity as we speak of but a meer moral Union or a perfect agreement and consent in knowledge will and affection such as is or ought to be among Christians and that our Saviour himself has thus expounded it 17 Iohn 20 21. Neither pray I for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me through their word That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be One in us Which is the very expression I have so much insisted on to prove this essential Union and Self-consciousness between the Father and the Son As thou Father art in me and I in thee which it seems signifies no other kind of Union than what our Saviour prays for among Christians That they also may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee Now the Union of Christians is only an Union in Faith and Love and One Communion and therefore thus the Father and the Son are One also by a consent and agreement in Knowledge Will and Love Now this I readily grant as I observed before that Father and Son are One by a most perfect agreement in Knowledge Will and Love which we call a Moral Union between Men and it is this Unity or Oneness for which our-Saviour prays that his Disciples may be One as the Father and he are One that they may perfectly agree in the same Faith and Love that they may speak the same things and mind the same things But then this perfect harmony and consent between the Father and the Son results from an essential Unity from their being in one another which is such an Union as it is impossible there should be between Christians but this Moral Union in the same Faith and mutual love is called being One as the Father and Son are One because it is the nearest resemblance of this essential Unity that can be between Creatures and that is the only meaning of As That they may be One
As thou Father art in me and I in Thee Not that they may be One in the very same manner but with such a kind of Unity as does most nearly resemble the Unity between the Father and the Son that is which produces the like consent and harmony in Will and Affections For we must observe that As very often signifies only some likeness and resemblance not a sameness for kind or degree and thus it must of necessity signifie in all comparisons between God and Creatures for though there is something in Creatures like to what is in God some faint shadows and images of it yet nothing in Creatures is the same that is in God St. Peter exhorts Christians As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation 1 Pet. 1.15 And Christ commands us to be perfect as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect 5 Matth. 48. But can any Creature be holy and perfect as God is Will you hence conclude that Holiness is not the immutable Nature of God but the free choice of his Will not his Nature which is One pure simple Act but an Habit of Virtue because so it is in us and yet we must be holy and perfect as God is which cannot be according to this way of Reasoning unless holiness in God be the same holiness which is in Creatures and indeed we may as well conclude this as that the Oneness between the Father and the Son is only a Moral Union in Will and Affection because there can be no other Union between Christians and yet Christ prays that they may be One as He and his Father are One Since this phrase As thou Father art in me and I in thee does evidently signifie a great deal more than such a Moral Union of Will and Affections why should they not as well conclude that Christ prays for such an essential Oneness between Christians as there is between him and his Father as that the Father and the Son are One in no higher and more perfect sense than what is applicable to the Unity of Christians with each other There may be such a likeness and resemblance between natural and moral Unions between the Acts and Perfections of Nature and the Vertues of the Will and Choice as may be a just foundation for a comparison but he is a very absurd Reasoner who from such a comparison will conclude they are the same we are required to love our Neighbour as our selves but will any Man hence conclude that the love of our selves and the love of our Neighbour are of the same kind Which is manifestly false Self-love being a natural and necessary Passion the love of our Neighbour a Christian Vertue the first the effect of Nature the second of Grace but the effects so like each other that they may well be compared and the natural principle which acts most equally and necessarily and perfectly may be made the Rule and Measure of Brotherly love Thus this essential Unity between the Father and the Son produces the most perfect harmony and Union of Will and Affections and therefore is the most perfect Pattern of that Moral Union which ought to be among Christians For we may observe that this Oneness between the Father and the Son is not the only natural and essential Unity which is made the Pattern of Unity among Christians the unity of the natural Body and the vital sympathy and fellow-feeling which all the Members of the same natural Body have for each other is proposed as a pattern also of that mutual love and affection between Christians 1 Cor. 12.12 27. And yet no man will be so absurd as to say That either Christians are as naturally and vitally united to each other as the Members of a natural Body are or that the Members of the natural Body are united only by mutual Love and Affection as Christians are This is sufficient to shew how Father and Son are One by a mutual consciousness whereby they are as intimate to each other as every man is to himself who knows all that is in himself and feels all the motions and workings of his own mind and we need not doubt but the Holy Spirit is in the same manner One with Father and Son But I must not expect that the Adversaries I have to deal with will grant any thing which is not proved and therefore I shall not stand to their Courtesie but briefly prove this also St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 2.10 That the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God So that the Holy Spirit knows all that is in God even his most deep and secret Counsels which is an argument that he is very intimate with him but this is not all it is the manner of knowing which must prove this consciousness of which I speak and that the Apostle adds in the next Verse that the Spirit of God knows all that is in God just as the Spirit of a Man knows all that is in Man that is not by external revelation or communication of this knowledge but by Self-consciousness by an internal Sensation which is owing to an essential Unity v. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God So that the Spirit of God is as much within God and as intimate to him as the Spirit of Man is in Man that is by an essential Oneness and Self-consciousness And as the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God so God who searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the spirit too 8 Rom. 27. So that the Father and the Holy Ghost are mutually conscious to each other as a Man and his own Spirit are and then we need not doubt but the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father Is as intimate to the Son also And therefore Christ tells us of the Spirit He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you all things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you 16 John 14 15. So that the Holy Spirit receives the things of Christ But how does he receive them Just as Christ receives them of the Father the same things and the same way not by an external communication but by an essential Oneness and Consciousness of all that is in the Father and in the Son This seems to me to be the true Scripture-account of the numerical Unity of the Divine Essence and to make a Trinity in Unity as intelligible as the Notion of One God is but because all that I have to say turns upon this I shall more particularly explain this Notion 1. By shewing that this contains the true Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity 2. That it gives a plain and intelligible Solution of all the Difficulties and
belong to more than One or is not appropriated to One If so then there are not three Persons but One Person and again there are not Three Men but One Man then I say these Propositions do not deny the terms Person and Men to belong to more than One or appropriate them to One only which yet every Body confesses they do This Objection sounds very formidably too but proves nothing but the shameful Ignorance and impudence of this Author who undertakes to write Notes upon Creeds and to ridicule the Venerable Mysteries of the Christian Faith before he understands them For let us begin with the Adjectives first such as Vncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty and we need take under consideration but any One of these and that will explain all the rest for there is the same account to be given of them all The Father then is Uncreated the Son Uncreated the Holy Ghost Uncreated and yet there are not Three Uncreated but One Uncreated Now to make this a Contradiction that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost Uncreated and yet that there are not Three Uncreated but One Uncreated this term Vncreated must be applied to the same subject and affirmed and denied in the same sense Now when Father Son and Holy Ghost are said to be Uncreated this term Vncreated is applied to the Three Divine Persons and if Father Son and Holy Ghost are Uncreated it is certain there are Three Divine Persons Vncreated and had it been said in the Creed that there are not Three Divine Persons Uncreated it had been as plain a Contradiction as to say That the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person and yet there are not Three Persons but one Person Thus far our Author and I agree But wherein then do we differ For is it not expresly said in the Creed that though the Father is Uncreated the Son Uncreated the Holy Ghost Uncreated which are plainly Three Uncreated if Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three yet there are not Three Uncreated but One Uncreated I grant it but if our Author had understood any Greek or Latin he should have made a little use of it here and then he would have found that the Creed of Athanasius had not denied that there were Three Uncreated Persons and therefore did not contradict what it had before affirmed that the Three Persons of the Sacred Trinity are all Uncreated For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tres Increati cannot signifie Three Uncreated Persons as it must do to make it a Contradiction for though there is no Substantive expressed yet some must be understood and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Increati will not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Personae and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dii must be understood that is though there are Three Uncreated Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost yet there are not Three Uncreated Gods but One Uncreated God which is no more a Contradiction than to say that though there are Three Divine Persons there are not Three but One God And that this is the true meaning of the Article appears from the whole scope and design of it I shall instance only in the conclusion which contains the Reason of the whole why though all Three Persons are Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord yet we must not say that there are Three but One Eternal Incomprehensible Uncreated Almighty God and Lord For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord and there is the same reason for Eternal Uncreate c. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say There are Three Gods or Three Lords Three Eternals Incomprehensibles Uncreated Almighties Which plainly proves that when the Creed denies that there are Three Eternals or Three Uncreated it does not deny that there are Three Eternal and Uncreated Persons but that there are Three Eternal and Uncreated Gods which is not like saying there are not Three Persons but One Person but these Three Eternal Persons are not Three Eternal Gods but One Eternal God This is a sufficient Answer with relation to the Adjectives of Eternal Uncreate Incomprehensible Almighty that if you joyn them with Person there are Three Eternal Uncreated Persons but if you joyn them with God there are not Three Eternal Uncreated Gods but One Eternal Uncreated God and this is no more a contradiction than to say there are Three Persons and but One God but what shall we say to the term GOD which is ascribed to all Three Persons and yet the Creed affirms that though there are Three Persons each of which is God yet there are not Three Gods but One God That is the term God is affirmed of Three and yet denied to belong to more than One And is not this a Contradiction I answer No unless this term God be attributed to Three divided and separated Persons for if Three such separated Persons be each of them God they must be Three Gods and it would be a Contradiction to say that Three Persons which are divided and separated from each other are each of them God and yet that there are not Three Gods but One God But if these Three distinct Persons are not separated but essentially united into One each of them may be God and all Three but One God for if these Three Persons each of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Creed singly by himself not seperately from the other Divine Persons is God and Lord are essentially united into One there can be but One God and One Lord and how each of these Persons is God and all of them but One God by their mutual consciousness I have already explained That Salvo he has found out for the Trinitarians of this pretended Contradiction of Three Gods and One God that there are Three personal Gods and but One essential God is so senseless and the Paragraph so long that I shall not give my self the trouble of transcribing it for the Answer lies in a few words We grant there are Three Persons each of whom is God but we deny that there are Three personal Gods because though their Persons are distinct they never were and never can be divided and separated and therefore can be but One God being essentially united into One by Three Gods all Mankind understand Three distinct and separate Beings independent on One another each of which is a Supreme and Soveraign God as Three seperate humane Persons are Three Men but where the Persons are not separated but essentially united into One there we must acknowledge but One God But you 'll say Though the Union of their Persons will not allow us to say that there are Three separate personal Gods yet if all Three Persons are distinct though not separated from each other and each of them is God considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as distinct
neither wise nor powerful But this acute Father discovered a great inconvenience in this argument for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise but by that Wisdom which he begot not being himself Wisdom as the Father and then we must consider whether the Son himself as he is God of God and Light of Light may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom if God the Father be not Wisdom but only begets Wisdom and by the same reason we may say that he begets his own Greatness and Goodness and Eternity and Omnipotency and is not himself his own Greatness or Goodness or Eternity or Omnipotency but is Great and Good Eternal and Omnipotent by the Greatness Goodness Eternity Omnipotency which is born of him as he is not his own Wisdom but is wise with that Wisdom which he begets The Master of the Sentences follows St. Austin exactly in this Point and urges this unanswerable Argument for it which he grounds upon St. Austin's Principle That in God to be and to be wise is the same thing and if it be he cannot be wise with the Wisdom he begets for then he would receive his Being from this begotten Wisdom not Wisdom from him for if the Wisdom he begets be the Cause of his being wise it is the Cause also that he is which must be either by begetting or by making him but no man will say that Wisdom is any way the Begetter or Maker of the Father which is the heighth of madness And in the next Chapter he teaches That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten Wisdom so that according to St. Austin and the Master of the Sentences who is the Oracle of the Schools the Father is Eternal Wisdom or an Eternal Mind and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind though both are united into One Eternal Wisdom and if we confess this of Father and Son there can be no Dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind and Wisdom distinct both from Father and Son Nothing is more familiar with the Ancient Fathers than to represent Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three as distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn are as every one knows who is at all versed in this Controversie and this is charged on them by some men as little better than Polytheism or a Trinity of Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are a Trinity of men but this must be true with reference to distinction of Persons if we will acknowledge a real distinction between them for if the distinction be real and not meerly nominal which was the Heresie of Sabellius their Persons must be as distinct as three humane Persons or three men are The Father is no more the Son or the Holy Ghost than Peter is Iames or Iohn but then they are not separated or divided from each other as Peter Iames and Iohn are for that indeed would make them three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three men There is no Example in Nature of such a distinction and unity as is between the Three Persons in the Godhead and therefore the ancient Fathers made use of several Comparisons to different purposes which must carefully be confined to what they applied them for if we extend them farther we make Nonsense or Heresie of them There are three things to be considered in the ever blessed Trinity the Distinction of Persons the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sameness of Nature and their Essential Unity and the Fathers make use of different Comparisons to represent each of these by because no one can represent them all but inconsidering Persons seek for all in One and because they cannot find it they reject them all as impertinent dangerous or heretical and reproach the Fathers sometimes as ignorant of this great Mystery sometimes as bordering upon Heresie which I am sure does little service to the Doctrine it self and gives great countenance to false and corrupt Notions of it whence the Fathers themselves even those who were the most zealous Opposers of Arianism are thought Favourites of such Opinions I shall have occasion to take notice of several Instances of this as I go on at present I shall confine my self to the Distinction of Persons which cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men for Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter Iames and Iohn but whoever shall hence conclude That these Fathers thought that Father Son and Holy Ghost are no otherwise One also than Peter Iames and Iohn are greatly abuse them without any colourable pretence for it as will appear more presently but this Comparison of theirs shows what their sense was that these Three Divine Persons are Three Eternal and Infinite Minds as really distinct from each other as Three men are though essentially united into One Infinite and Eternal Mind or One God But I need not insist on this for the real distinction of Persons is so plainly taught by the ancient Fathers especially after the rise of the Sabellian Heresie that there is more difficulty to understand how they unite them into One God then that they make them distinct Persons and what they say about the unity of the Godhead abundantly proves this distinction of Persons Secondly Let us therefore in the second place consider How they explain this great Mystery of a Trinity in Unity they all agree That there are Three distinct Persons and that these Three Persons are but One God and they seem to me to agree very well in that account they give of it though some late Writers are very free and I think very unjust in their Censures of some of them as scarcely Orthodox in this Point I shall only remind you that this being so great a Mystery of which we have no Example in Nature it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union and therefore it was necessary to use several Examples and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the Godhead and we must carefully apply what they say to those Ends and Purposes for which they said it and not extend it beyond their Intension as I observed before and there are several steps they take towards the Explication of this great Mystery which I shall represent in short and show that taking them altogether they give a plain and intelligible Notion of this Unity in Trinity and indeed no other than what I have already given of it 1. The first thing then to be considered is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orCo-essentiallity of the Divine Persons That all Three Persons in the God-head have the same Nature which they signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now whereas the same Nature may signifie the same Numerical or the same Specifick Nature Petavius and after him Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved that the Nicene Fathers did not understand this word of a
Numerical but Specifick Sameness of Nature or the agreement of things numerically differing from one another in the same common Nature As Maximus very plainly tell us that that is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same Notion or Definition of its Essence as a man differs nothing from a man as he is a man nor an Angel from an Angel as he is an Angel and therefore this word did equally overthrow the Sabellian and the Arian Heresie as it affirms both a distinction of Persons and the sameness of Nature as St. Ambrose and others observe for nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it self but to something else distinct from it self but of the same common Nature and therefore some who owned the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as savouring of Sabellianism and implying such a numerical Unity of Essence in the Godhead as destroyed all distinction of Persons for which reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self was rejected by some as abused by the Sabellians till the signification of that word was fixt and declared by the Fathers at Nice as Petavius observes This is One thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead that all three Persons have the same Nature and to be sure this is absolutely necessary to make Three Persons One God for it is impossible they should be One God if they have not the same Nature unless Three distinct and separate Beings of divers Natures can be One God that is unless the Divine Nature be not One pure and simple Act but a compound Being and that of different Natures too But some of the Fathers went farther than this and placed the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the sameness of Essence that there is but One God because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature And it will be necessary briefly to examine what they meant by it to vindicate these Fathers from the Mis-representations and hard Censures of Petavius and Dr. Cudworth who as I hope to make appear have greatly mistaken their Sense The Charge is that they make the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God only upon account of the same Specifical Divine Nature common to them all just as Three men are One by having the same common Nature or the same Humanity and being asked Why they may not then be called Three Gods as well as we say Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men they answer That this is owing to an ill Custom for they ought not to be called Three men neither which is like saying there are Three Human Natures and though in inferiour Matters we may bear with the abuse of Words and improper forms of Speech yet this is of dangerous Consequence when we speak of God and therefore though there is no great hurt in saying there are Three men though there is but one Humanity common to them all yet we must not say there are Three Gods since there is but One Divine Nature and Essence common to all Three Persons This Petavius says is to deny the true and real Unity of the Divine Substance and Essence and to make God only collectively One as a multitude of men are said to be One People and a multitude of Believers One Church which was the Error of Abbot Ioachim for which he was Condemned in the Council of Lateran Dr. Cudworth represents it thus These Theologers supposed the Three Persons of their Trinity to have really no other than a Specifick Vnity and Identity and because it seems plainly to follow from hence that therefore they must needs be as much Three Gods as Three men are Three men these Learned Fathers endeavoured with their Logick to prove that Three men are but abusively and improperly so called Three they being really and truly but One because there is but One and the same Specifick Essence or Substance of Human Nature in them all He adds It seems plain that this Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritheism and that of Gods Independent and Co-ordinate too This is a very high Charge and yet these Theologers are no less men than Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus and Damascen men of Note in their Generation and never charged with Heresie before But whatever the meaning of these Fathers was it is plain that Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have mistaken their meaning For they did not think that Father Son and Holy Ghost were one God only as Peter Iames and Iohn are one man or that Peter Iames and Iohn are One man as Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God they neither dreamt of a Collective nor Specifick Unity of the Godhead but asserted a real subsisting numerical Unity of Essence as is obvious to every impartial Reader and therefore if they had not understood how they explained this yet they ought not to have put such a sense upon their Words as is directly contrary to what they affirm I shall not need to transcribe much out of these Fathers to justifie them in this Point but will only represent their Argument as plainly as I can and that will be their Justification whatever become of their Argument They affirm then That Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God because there is and can be but One numerical Divinity or one Divine Nature and Essence though it subsist in Three distinct Persons against this it was objected that Peter Iames and Iohn though they have the same Human Nature yet are called Three men and there is no absurdity in it when there are more than One who have the same Nature to speak of them in the Plural Number to call Two Two and Three Three how then comes it to pass that Religion forbids this that when we acknowledge Three Persons who have the same Nature without any imaginable difference we must in a manner contradict our selves confessing the Divinity of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One and the same and denying that they are Three Gods This Gregory Nyssen answers at large and I shall chiefly confine my self to the Answers he gives which will abundantly show how much these two Learned Men have mis-represented his Sense And first he takes notice of the common Form of Speech of calling Three who partake of the same Human Nature Three Men which inclines us to call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the same Divine Nature Three Gods and that naturally betrays men into the Opinion of a Trinity of Gods as well as of a Trinity of Persons who are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three men and therefore he tells us that this is an improper way of speaking even when applied to men to say that there are Three men For man is the name of Nature not of the Person to
Faculties and Powers more but these being only Faculties and Powers neither of them is a whole entire Mind the Understanding alone is not the whole entire Mind nor Reflexion nor Love but the Mind is whole and entire by the union of them all in One but these being Persons in the Godhead each Person has the whole Divine Nature The Son has all that the Father has being his perfect and natural Image and the Holy Spirit is all that Father and Son is comprehending all their infinite Perfections in Eternal Love and they are all the same and all united into One God as the several Faculties and Powers are in One Mind 7. For this proves that these Divine Persons are intimately conscious to each other which as I before showed makes them One numerical God for as the same Mind is conscious to all its own Faculties and Powers and by that unites them into One so where there are Divine and Infinite Persons instead of Faculties and Powers they must be mutually conscious to each other to make them all One God 8. This proves also that though there are Three distinct Persons there can be but One Energie and Operation Father Son and Holy Ghost is the Maker and Governour of the World by one inseparable and undivided Energie neither of them do nor can act apart as the several Powers of the Mind all concur to the same individual Action Knowledge Self-reflection and Will do the same thing which is the Effect of Knowledge brought into act by Reflection and Will and yet the Effect may be ascribed to Knowledge and ascribed to Will as the making of the World is to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost not separately to either but as they act in Conjunction and produce the same Effect by One individual Energie and Power 9. This proves also that Father Son and Holy Ghost must be co-eternal as the several Powers and Faculties must be co-temporary and co-exist in the same Mind Understanding cannot be without a Power of Reflection nor that without Will and Love And I suppose no man will say that there could be any imaginable instant wherein God did not know and love himself This Account is very agreeable to what St. Austin has given us who represents the Father to be Original Mind the Son his Knowledge of himself and the Holy-Spirit Divine Love as I have done and gives the very same Account of their Union Cùm itaque se mens novit amat jungitur ei amore verbum ejus quoniam amat notitiam novit amorem verbum in amore est amor in verbo utrumque in amante dicente When the Mind knows and loves it self its Word is united to it by Love and because it loves its Knowledge and knows its Love its Word is in Love and Love in its Word and both in the loving and speaking or knowing Mind This is the Eternal Generation of the Son Itaque mens cùm seipsam cognoscit sola parens est notitioe suoe cognitum enim cognitor ipsa est when the Mind knows it self it is the sole Parent of its own Knowledge for its self is both the Knower and the Thing known that is the Son is begotten of the Father by a reflex Knowledge of himself and he gives us the same Account of the Difference between Generation and Procession that One is a new Production if I may so express it inventum partum repertum that is the Production of its own Image of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion the other comes out of the Mind as Love does and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it but not its Parent Cur itaque amando se non genuisse dicatur amorem suum sicut cognoscendo se genuit notitiam suam in eo quidem manifeste ostenditur hoc amoris esse principium undè procedit ab ipsa quidem mente procedit quae sibi est amabilis antequam se amet atque ita principium est amoris sui quo se amat sed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea sicut notitia sui quâ se novit quia notitia jam inventum est quod partum vel repertum dicitur quod saepe praecedit inquisitio eo fine quietura This I hope is sufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and that Account I have given of it It must be confessed that the ancient Fathers did not express their Sense in the same terms that I have done but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge whether they do not seem to have intended the very same Explication which I have now given of this venerable Mystery As for the Schoolmen they generally pretend to follow the Fathers and have no Authority where they leave them Sometimes they seem to mistake their Sense or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own The truth is that which has confounded this Mystery has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis Person and the like which some of the Fathers used in a very different Sense from each other which sometimes occasioned great Disputes among them not because they differed in the Faith but because they used words so differently as not to understand each others meaning as Petavius has shewn at large The more pure and simple Age of the Church contented themselves to profess the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that there was but One God and Three who were this One God which is all the Scripture teaches of it But when Sabellius had turned this Mystery only into a Trinity of Names they thought themselves concerned to say what these Three are who are One God and then they nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis and Nature and Essence and Substance that they were Three Persons but One Nature Essence and Substance but then when men curiously examined the signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery for what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality and Subsistence The Deity is above Nature and above terms of Art there is nothing like this mysterious Distinction and Unity and therefore no wonder if we want proper words to express it by at least that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures should not reach it I do not think it impossible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and distinctions but that is a work of greater difficulty than use especially to ordinary Christians and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now SECT VI.
Imperial Palace to countenance and promote their proceedings and having bespattered Athanasius with all the ill things they had formerly charged him with and tried in vain to delay the Sentence of the Western Bishops they proceeded Synodically to condemn and depose him together with several other principal Bishops of the Catholick Party of all which they published an Encyclical or Decretal Epistle wherein they gave a large account of their whole proceeding The Western Bishops in the mean time after a large and particular Examination of Athanasius's Case and all Matters of Fact relating to him acquitted and restored him and having heard the Complaints made to the Synod from all parts concerning the Grievances they lay under from the Arian Faction they particularly condemned and deposed the chief Heads of that Party and banished them from the Communion of the Faithful publishing an account of what they had done in several Synodical Letters Thus far it was pretty well with Athanasius for all the Churches of God did not condemn him if he were condemned by the Eastern Bishops in a Schismatical Conventicle he was absolved by the Western Council if he was condemned by the Arians he was absolved by the Catholicks but still his Faith was no matter of the Dispute But now the Zeal of Constantius reduced Athanasius to greater extremity for he lying at Arles in France Anno 353 a Synod was held there where all Arts were used to procure the condemnation of Athanasius at least by refusing to hold Communion with him to which most of the Bishops yielded and Vincentius of Capua himself the Pope's chief Legate subscribed the Condemnation Paulinus of Triers for his honest courage and constancy in refusing it being driven into Banishment Not contented with this as if poor Athanasius could never be often enough condemned Anno 355 Constantius going to Milan another Synod was called there and the Catholick Bishops were strictly required to subscribe the Condemnation of Athanasius and the Emperor himself being present in the Synod drew his Sword and fiercely told them That it must be so that he himself accused Athanasius and that his Testimony ought to be believed And for refusing to comply Eusebius Vercellensis Lucifer Caralitanus and several others were sent into Banishment This is the Council which as our Author tells us consisted of Three hundred Bishops but the Emperor was more than all the rest and it was he that extorted the Condemnation of Athanasius and let him make his best of this The like Violence was used in other Synods as in that of Syrmium Anno 357 where a Confession of Faith was drawn up which Hosius of Corduba was forced to subscribe and as some say to condemn Athanasius Anno 359 was his other great Council at Ariminum of Five hundred and fifty Bishops where they were so managed by the subtilty and importunity of some few Arian Bishops and so wearied out by Taurus the Prefect and that by the command of the Emperor that they generally yielded several of them being even starved into compliance and this is the time of which St. Ierom speaks that the whole World wondered to see itself Arian By such Councils and by such Arts as these Athanasius was condemned though he was never accused nor condemned for his Faith and that veneration the whole Christian World has had ever since for the Name of Athasius is a sufficient Vindication of his Person and Faith notwithstanding the ill usage he met with under an Arian Emperor As for his next Paragraph wherein he appeals to the late Arian Historian Chr. Sandius I shall only refer the Reader to Dr. Bull 's Answer and I think I am more than even with him and whoever will read and consider what that learned Man has irrefragably proved that those Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice were yet of the same Faith with the Nicene Fathers as to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity will see that a very modest Man may call this the Catholick Faith even in his sense of the word Catholick as it signifies the common Faith of Christians in all Ages since the Preaching of the Gospel in the World And that it requires both Forehead and Forgery to deny it And if in that Age Athanasius were the only Man who durst openly and boldly defend the Catholick Faith against a prevailing Faction supported by a Court Interest and grown formidable by Lies and Calumnies and the most barbarous Cruelties it is for his immortal Honour and will always be thought so by the Churches of Christ. And now I come to answer his terrible Objections against the several Articles of this Creed which he has endeavoured to ridicule and when I have done so I hope he will think it time to consider what it is to ridicule the Christian Faith A modest Man would not affront the general Faith of Christians at least of that Church in which he lives and a cautious Man whatever his private Opinion were would not ridicule so venerable a Mystery lest it should prove true which is the same Argument we use to make Atheists modest not to laugh at the Notion of a God lest he should find the God whom he has so impudently affronted when he comes into the other World SECT IV. The Catholick Doctrine of a Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity explained and vindicated from all pretended Absurdities and Contradictions THE Catholick Faith is this That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity He means here That we must so worship the One True God as to remember he is Three Persons and so worship the Three Persons as to bear in mind they are but One Substance or Godhead or God So the Author explains himself in the Three next Articles which are these Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance for there is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost but the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. Therefore all these Articles make indeed but One Article which is this The One true God is Three distinct Persons and Three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are the One true God Thus far I agree with this Author and indeed this is the whole of the Creed as far as relates to the Doctrine of the Trinity that there are Three Persons and One God all the rest being only a more particular explication of this and therefore I would desire the Reader to observe for the understanding this Creed what belongs to the Persons and what to the One Eternal undivided Substance or Godhead which will answer all the seeming Contradictions which are charged on this Doctrine But he proceeds Plainly as if a Man should say Peter Iames and Iohn being Three Persons are One Man and One Man is these Three Persons Peter Iames and Iohn Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to
seeming Contradictions in the Doctine of the Trinity I. This contains the true Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity or a Trinity in Unity for so the Athanasian Creed teaches us To worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance for there is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost but the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal There are two things then which an Orthodox Christian must take care of neither to confound the Persons nor to divide the Substance that is to acknowledge Three distinct Persons and yet but One God and nothing can be more apparent than both these in that account which I have given of the Ever Blessed Trinity 1. It is plain the Persons are perfectly distinct for they are Three distinct and infinite Minds and therefore Three distinct Persons for a Person is an intelligent Being and to say they are Three Divine Persons and not Three distinct infinite Minds is both Heresie and Nonsense The Scripture I 'm sure represents Father Son and Holy Ghost as Three intelligent Beings not as Three Powers or Faculties of the same Being which is down-right Sabellianism for Faculties are not Persons no more than Memory Will and Understanding are Three Persons in One Man When we prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person against the Socinians who make him only a Divine Power we prove that all the Properties of a Person belong to him such as Understanding Will Affections and Actions which shews what our Notion of a Person is such a Being as has Understanding and Will and Power of Action and it would be very strange that we should own Three Persons each of which Persons is truly and properly God and not own Three infinite Minds as if any thing could be a God but an infinite Mind And the distinction between these Three Infinite Minds is plain according to this Notion for they are distinguished just as Three finite and created Minds are by Self-consciousness They are united indeed into One as I have already discoursed by a mutual Consciousness to each other which no created Spirits have which are conscious only to the actings of their own Minds not to each others and therefore these Three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits are but only distinct each Divine Person has a Self consciousness of its own and knows and feels itself if I may so speak as distinct from the other Divine Persons the Father has a Self-consciousness of his own whereby he knows and feels himself to be the Father and not the Son nor the Holy Ghost and the Son in like manner feels himself to be the Son and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost feels himself to be the Holy Ghost and not the Father nor the Son as Iames feels himself to be Iames and not Peter nor Iohn which proves them to be distinct Persons Which is a very plain account how these Three Divine Persons are distinct that there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts Here is no confounding of Persons 2. Nor do we divide the Substance but unite these Three Persons in One numerical Essence for we know nothing of the unity of the Mind but self-consciousness as I shewed before and therefore as the self-consciousness of every Person to itself makes them distinct Persons so the mutual consciousness of all Three Divine Persons to each other makes them all but One infinite God as far as consciousness reaches so far the Unity of a Spirit extends for we know no other unity of a Mind or Spirit but consciousness In a created Spirit this consciousness extends only to itself and therefore self-consciousness makes it One with itself and divides and separates it from all other Spirits but could this consciousness extend to other Spirits as it does to itself all these Spirits which were mutually conscious to each other as they are to themselves though they were distinct Persons would be essentially One And this is that essential unity which is between Father Son and Holy Ghost who are essentially united by a mutual consciousness to whatever is in each other and do by an internal sensation I want other words to express it feel each other as they do themselves and therefore are as essentially One as a Mind and Spirit is One with itself 2. This is a very plain and intelligible account of this great and venerable Mystery as plain and intelligible as the Notion of One God or of One Person in the Godhead The great difficulty of conceiving a Trinity of Persons in One infinite and undivided Essence or Substance arises from those gross and material Idea's we have of Essence and Substance when we speak of the Essence or Substance of God or created Spirits We can frame no Idea of Substance but what we have from Matter that it is something extended in a tripple Dimension in length and breadth and depth which is the subject of those Qualities which inhere and subsist in it And therefore as Matter is the subject of all sensible Qualities so we conceive some such Substance of a Mind and Spirit which is the subject of Will and Understanding of Thoughts and Passions And then we find it impossible to conceive how there should be Three Divine Persons which are all infinite without Three distinct infinite Substances each distinct infinite Person having a distinct infinite Substance of his own and if we grant this it seems a plain contradiction to say That these Three distinct infinite Substances are but One numerical Infinite Substance which is to say that Three Infinities are but One Infinite and that Three Persons are but One Person for a Person and an intelligent Substance are reciprocal Terms and therefore Three distinct Persons are Three distinct numerical Substances and One numerical intelligent Substance is but One numerical Person But this is all carnal Reason in a strict and proper sense which conceives of an infinite Mind after the manner of a Body and distinguishes between the Matter or Substance and the Powers and Vertues of the Divine Essence as it does between Matter and Qualities and Accidents in Bodies We know nothing of the Divine Essence but that God is an infinite Mind and if we seek for any other Essence or Substance in God but an infinite Minds that is infinite Wisdom Power and Goodness the Essence of God though considered but as One numerical Person is as perfectly unintelligible to us as the One numerical Essence or Substance of Three Divine Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity It is this gross and material imagination about the Essence and Substance of the Deity which occasions all the Difficulties about the Notion of One God as well as of a Trinity in Unity For we cannot
perfect or which has all possible Perfections which has no other end of its Perfections but Perfection itself that is a finite imperfect Being that wants any Perfections that is an infinite Being not which has no end of its Perfections but which actually has all Perfections and can be no more perfect than it is For there is a measure of the most absolute and in this sense infinite Perfections before which no Being is absolutely perfect and beyond which there are no new degrees of Perfection for if we do not grant this there can be no Being absolutely perfect As for Instance Infinite Wisdom Knowledge Goodness Justice Power have fixt and set bounds to their Perfections beyond which they cannot go Infinite Knowledge and Wisdom knows all things that are knowable and that are wise infinite Goodness can do all things which are good infinite Justice is perfect Justice which observes the exact proportions of Right and Wrong infinite Power can do all things which can be done To know what is not to be known to do what is not to be done to be good or just beyond the perfect measures of Goodness and Justice is a contradiction for it is neither Wisdom nor Power nor Goodness nor Justice The Nature of Wisdom Power Justice and Goodness is fixt and determined and the utmost bounds of them is absolute perfection The Divine Nature is the Original Rule and Standard and utmost bounds of them and therefore absolutely perfect These Perfections indeed may be called infinite in the Negative sense with respect to us that we know not what the utmost extent of them are We know not how far infinite Wisdom and Power and Goodness reaches but then we certainly know that they have their bounds and that the Divine Nature is the utmost bounds of them for nothing can be a Rule and Measure of absolute Perfections but the Divine Nature itself Now this gives us a positive Notion and Idea of God though we cannot comprehend his absolute Perfections we as certainly know what God is as we know what Wisdom Knowledge Power Goodness Justice signifie but how wise how good how powerful God is we know not because we do not know the utmost extent of these Perfections I must now add that there can be no absolute Perfections but those of a Mind such as I have so often mentioned Wisdom Power Goodness As for Matter it is so imperfect a Being itself that it cannot be the subject of absolute Perfections Nothing which belongs to Matter is a Perfection considered in itself Extension is no Perfection no more than the dimensions of a Body are to be long or broad or deep to be little or great which may be Perfections or Imperfections as it happens with relation to the just measures and proportions of different Bodies for either greatness or littleness may make different things monstrous and therefore neither of them are either Beauties or Perfections themselves for what is in itself a Perfection is always so Extension is of no use but where there is a multitude or diversity of Parts and such a compound Being can never be absolutely perfect because it is made of Parts which are not absolutely perfect as no Part can be and ten thousand imperfect Parts can never make up an absolute perfect Being And if what is infinitely perfect can have no Parts it needs no Extension and can have none for what is extended has assignable Parts whether they can be divided or not Omnipresence is a great and unquestionable Perfection but to be Omnipresent by infinite Extension if such a thing could be would be no Perfection at all for this would be to be present only by Parts as a Body might be which is infinitely extended and a Body is a capable of infinite Extension as any Man can conceive a Spirit to be and yet if a Spirit be Omnipresent only by infinite Extension the whole Substance of that Spirit is not present every where but part of it in one place and part in another as many Miles distant from each other as the places are where such parts of the Omnipresent Spirit are This all Men will confess to be absurd and yet if the whole Mind and Spirit be present every where it is certain it is not present every where by way of Extension for the whole Extension of an infinitely extended Spirit is not present every where And if Omnipresence itself cannot be owing to infinite Extension no Man can tell me why an infinite Mind should be extended at all For Extension itself is no Perfection Much less do any other Vertues and Qualities of Bodies deserve the Name of Absolute Perfections and therefore we must seek for Absolute Perfection only in a Mind perfect Wisdom Knowledge Power Goodness Justice make an absolute perfect Mind there are no other absolute Perfections but these and therefore there can be no other absolutely perfect Being but an infinite Mind But besides this we may observe that all these absolute Perfections by a mutual consciousness may be entire and equal in three distinct infinite Minds There is no contradiction that three infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect in Wisdom Goodness Justice and Power for these are Perfections which may be in more than One as Three Men may all know the same things and be equally just and good but Three such Minds cannot be absolutely perfect without being mutually conscious to each other as they are to themselves for if they do not perfectly know each other as they know themselves their Wisdom and Knowledge is not absolutely perfect for they do not know all things if they do not perfectly know one another and there can be no such perfect knowledge of each other without a mutual consciousness This shews not only the possibility of this Notion that Three distinct infinite Minds should be mutually conscious to each other but the necessity of it if there be Three such infinitely perfect Minds for they cannot be infinitely perfect without being conscious to one another Thus to proceed This Notion plainly reconciles the perfect equality of all Three Persons with the Prerogative of the Father and the Subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit That all Three persons are perfectly equal in Knowledge Wisdom Goodness Justice Power is evident from their mutual consciousness whereby they all know love and do the same things which is a perfect equality But this does not destroy the natural Subordination of the Son to the Father of a derivative to an original Light as Christ is called in the Nicene Creed God of God Light of Light For though God has communicated his own Nature to him and received him into his Bosom to an intimate consciousness with himself which makes him the perfect Image of his Father yet he receives all this from his Father by eternal Generation he is a Son still though equal to his Father in all Divine Perfections and therefore subordinate to him as a Son and the
like may be said of the Holy Spirit This shews also how these Three distinct Persons are each of them God and yet are all but One God Each Person is God for each Person has the whole and entire Perfections of the Godhead having by this mutual consciousness the other Persons in himself that each Person is in some sense the whole Trinity The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son and the Holy Spirit in Father and Son and Father and Son in the Holy Spirit and therefore if the whole Trinity be God the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God they being all mutually in each other and yet this is a plain demonstration that they are not Three Gods but One God because neither of them are the One Supreme God but as thus intimately united to all the rest and then they can be all Three but One Supreme God This gives an intelligible account of one of the most difficult Problems in all School-Divinity which the Master of the Sentences borrowed from St. Austin as he has done most of his other Distinctions that the whole Trinity is not greater than any One Person in the Trinity This sounds very harshly at first hearing and yet if we consider it we must confess it to be true unless we will say that there is a greater and less in God or that the Three Persons in the Trinity make One God as Three parts make a whole each of which parts must be less than the whole and yet I cannot see any possible way to understand this matter but only this That the whole Trinity by a mutual consciousness is in each person and therefore no Person is less than the whole Trinity And this is the only possible way of understanding the different Modi subsistendi of which the Schools speak That the Three Divine Persons have One numerical Essence and are One God but are distinguished from each other by a distinct manner of Subsistence proper to each Person It is plain the Schoolmen were no Sabellians they did not think the Three Divine Persons to be only Three Names of the same infinite Being but acknowledged each Person to be really distinct from one another and each of them to have the same numerical Essence and to be truly and properly God and not to be Three Modes of the same infinite God which is little better than Three Names of One God And what are these Modi subsistendi by which the Divine Persons are distinguished from each other Now they are no other than the proper and distinguishing Characters of each Person that the Father is of himself or without any cause that the Son is begotten of the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son Which proves that by these Modi subsistendi they did not mean as some mistake them that the Three Divine Persons are Three Modes of the Deity or only modally distinguished for there are no Modes no more than there are Qualities and Accidents in the Deity much less can a Mode be a God To be sure all Men must grant that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity but essentially God and yet he has his Modus subsistendi as well as the Son and the Holy Ghost and no Man can think that the Father begat only a Modus and called it his Son whereas a Son signifies a real Person of the same Nature but distinct from his Father All then that can possibly be meant by these Modes of Subsistence is this that the same numerical Essence is whole and entire in each Divine Person but in a different manner the Son and Holy Ghost are in the Father as the One is begotten the other proceeds from him and yet both remain in him an intimate consciousness and thus you have often heard all Three Persons are in each other and therefore are numerically One the Father has the Son and Holy Ghost in himself as the Fountain of the Deity the Son begotten of the Father the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Father and Son That is there are Three infinite Minds which are distinguished from each other by the relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost the Father begets the Son is begotten the Holy Ghost proceeds which are there different Modes of subsisting but each of these infinite Minds has the other Two in himself by an intimate and mutual consciousness and that makes all Three Persons numerically One Divine Essence or One God for when the whole Trinity is in each distinct Person each Person is the same One numerical God and all of them but One God If the Father for instance have his own personal Wisdom and by an internal consciousness all the Wisdom of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Son have his own personal Wisdom and by the same consciousness all the Wisdom of the Father and the Holy Ghost and in like manner the Holy Ghost have his own personal Wisdom and all the Wisdom of Father and Son this infinite Wisdom which is in Father Son and Holy Ghost is identically the same for from which Person soever you begin to reckon this Union it is the same Father Son and Holy Ghost still which are thus intimately united into One and therefore it is the same numerical and identical Wisdom which is in each of them and the same in all To add no more This Notion gives a plain account too of that Maxim of the Schools That all the Operations of the Trinity ad extra are common to all Three Persons for it cannot possibly be otherwise when they are thus intimately united by a mutual consciousness for they can no more act than they can subsist separately when the Wisdom Goodness Justice Power of the whole Trinity is entire in each Person and the same in all every Person of the Trinity must be equally concerned saving the Natural Order and Subordination of Persons in all the external Effects and Operations of the Divine Wisdom Justice Goodness and Power Thus I have endeavoured to explain this Great and Venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Unity and this I may say that I have given not only a very possible and a very intelligible Notion of it but such also as is very agreeable to the phrase and expressions of Scripture such as preserves the Majesty of the Article and solves all the Difficulties of it there may be a great deal more in this Mystery than we can fathom but thus much we can understand of it and that is enough to reconcile us to this belief and to shame and silence the profane Scoffers at a Trinity in Unity as I have in part shewn already and will do now more fully by proceeding to answer those many Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it by the Brief Notes To proceed then where I left off There is One Person of the Father another of the Son another of the Holy Ghost Then the Son is not the Father
has two ways of doing this 1. He observes that the Name God and so those other Names which are ascribed to the Divinity do not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as declare something relating to it for the Divine Nature is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which has no Name and which no words can express and signifie as the Scripture teaches but the Names given to God only teach us either what we ought not to attribute to the Divine Nature or what we ought but not what the Divine Nature it self is This is a fair Introduction such as becomes a wise man who considers how unknown the Essences of all Things are to us much more the Substance and Essence of God and how it confounds our Minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the Godhead to have the least conception or thought about the distinction and union of Natures and Essences and therefore he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Inspector and Governour of the World that is it is a Name of Energie Operation and Power and if this Vertue Energie Operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost then they are but One God but One Power and Energie and thus he proves it is and that not as it is among men who have the same Power and Skill do the very same Things profess the same Art are Philosophers or Orators alike and yet are not all One Philosopher or One Orator because though they do the same thing yet they act apart every one by himself and have no Communion nor share in what each other do but their Operations are proper to themselves alone but in the Divine Nature it is not so the Father does nothing by himself nor the Son by himself nor the Holy Ghost by himself but the whole Energie and Operation of the Deity relating to Creatures begins with the Father passes to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit The Holy Trinity does not act any thing separately there are not Three distinct Operations as there are Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one motion and disposition of the good Will which passes through the whole Trinity from Father to Son and to the Holy Ghost and this is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any distance of Time or propagating the Motion from one to t'other but by One thought as it is in One numerical Mind and Spirit and therefore though they are Three Persons they are but one numerical Power and Energie By this time I hope the Reader is satisfied That this Father does not make the Persons of the Trinity Three Independent and Coordinate Gods who are no otherwise One than Three men are by a Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature but has found out such an Unity for them as he confesses cannot be between Three men even such an Unity as there is in a Spirit which is numerically One with it self and conscious to all its own Motions for I leave any man to judge whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this one single Motion of Will which is in the same instant in Father Son and Holy Ghost can signifie any thing else but a mutual consciousness which makes them numerically One and as intimate to each other as every man is to himself as I have already explained it Petavius was aware of this and therefore will not allow this to belong to the same Argument but to be a new and distinct Argument by it self Now suppose this yet methinks he should have suspected he had mistaken the Fathers Sense when he found him contradict what he apprehended to be his Sense within the compass of two Pages but indeed the mistake is his own for the Father pursues his intended Argument to prove that though the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God yet we ought not to say that there are Three Gods but One God This he proves first because God is the Name of Nature and the Name of Nature must not be expressed in the Plural number when the Nature is the same without any the least conceivable difference for to say there are Three Gods is to say that there are Three different Divine Natures which introduces Polytheism as to say there are Three men is to say there are Three different Human Natures for if they be the same they are not Three and therefore the Name of the Nature must not be expressed plurally how many Persons soever there are who have the same Nature This was to secure the Homoousiotes of the Divine Nature and if he had stopped here Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have said what they pleased of him but having secured the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature which was the great Dispute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians he proceeds to show how this same Nature in Three distinct Persons is united into one numerical Essence and Godhead and this he does first by showing that God signifies Power and Energie and that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation and therefore are but One God which is only the improvement of his former Argument for the Sameness of Nature is necessary to the Sameness of Operation for Nature is the Principle of Action especially in God whose Nature is a pure and simple Act and an unity and singularity of Energie and Operation is a demonstration of One numerical Essence for the same single individual Act cannot be done by Two separate Beings who must act separately also Secondly As for those who are not contended to contemplate God as a pure and simple Act or Energie which easily solves this difficulty how Three Persons are One God they having but One numerical Energie and Operation I say as for those who not contented with this inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts that this perfect Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature without the least difference or alteration makes them numerically One and returns to what he had first said That the Name of Nature should not be expressed Plurally it being One entire undivided Unity which is neither encreased nor diminished by subsisting in more or fewer Persons I confess I do not understand his reasoning in this matter he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation whereby One thing is distinguished from another where there is no difference or diversity of Nature for Things he says must be distinguished by Magnitude Place Figure Colour or some other diversity in Nature before we can number them and call them Two or Three and therefore since the Divine simple unalterable Nature admits of no Essential diversity that it may be One it will not admit of any number in it self but is but One God Whereas I confess to my understanding if the same pure unmixt
Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reason FOR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there be Three Gods and Three Lords By the Christian Verity I suppose is meant the Sacred Books which contain the Christian Religion that is the Books of the Old and New Testament But do these Books and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Persons each of which is by himself Supreme God and Lord and yet all of them together but One God Doth I say the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture which all the Vnitarians and some or other of the most learned Trinitarians do not easily interpret in such Sense that the Vnity of God is preserved and no more than One Person even the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ acknowledged to be God See the History of the Vnitarians But if there is no Text of Scripture but what is in the Opinion of some or other of their own Learned Men fairly capable of a Sense contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith And the truth is the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought a Clash of Reason with Scripture but it layeth here whether when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God or but One who is God which agrees with the rest of Scripture and with Natural Reason we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is absurd and contrary to it self to reason and to the rest of Scripture such as the Trinitarians Interpretation exprest in this Creed appears to be In a word the Question only is Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trouble an Answerers thoughts but a great deal to exercise his Patience if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly His first Argument to prove that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confess each Person in the ever blessed Trinity to be God and Lord and yet that there is but one God is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment So he says and has endeavoured to prove it and how vainly and impertinently I leave the Reader to judge but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction as I am perswaded I have evidently proved then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine and require the belief of it but this is an impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it be plainly contained there he would conclude how unintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture we must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every man knows and every man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of a Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand as I shewed before His next Proof That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment is that the Unitarians and some of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts of Scripture which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Sense and easily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only who is God as well as of One God and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece the History of the Unitarians As for examining particular Texts which are alledged on both sides in this Controversie it is too voluminous a Work at present and besides my present Undertaking which is only to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the true Christian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity from the pretended Absurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes and when that is done and I hope I have done it I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture But as for what he says that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity to their Notion of One God in opposition to Three Divine Persons in the Godhead we must let him say so because he will say it as all other Hereticks pretend Scripture to be on their side but to say that they can easily do this is a little impudent when all Men who understand this Controversie see what Art they use and what forced and arbitrary Interpretations they put on Scripture to reconcile it to their Opinions especially when some of the most learned Socinians stick not to confess That they will expound Scripture to any sense rather than acknowledge such Doctrines as they think so contradictory to the Reason and Understanding of Mankind which no modest Man would own were he not sensible of the harshness and uncouthness of his own Expositions for things are come to a desperate pass when they shall resolve upon any sense or no sense rather than that which the words most aptly and properly signifie but lies cross to their Prejudices and pre-conceived Opinions But what thinks he of Socinus's Exposition of that Text where Christ says That he came down from Heaven which he could not do if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary Did Socinus find it so easie a thing to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and to pray for it and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World Whereas our Saviour plainly speaks of his first coming into the World when he was born of the Virgin and the whole History of the Gospel takes no notice of his being taken up into Heaven before his Resurrection from the dead I think this was no easie Exposition but of this more presently That there are no Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity but what are rejected by one or other of the most learned Trinitarians is as true as the other There are many Texts which all hearty Trinitarians do and must agree in
and whoever rejects them whatever name he goes by can be no better than a Socinian in disguise but however there are no Texts alledged by learned Trinitarians but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned Trinitarians and thus it is as broad as long but it is not the Authority of any modern Expositors which we rely on but their Reason and if a learned Trinitarian should reject any Text without Reason or Learning it signifies no more to us than the Expositions of a learned Socinian when we seek for Authority we go higher to the Primitive Fathers of the Catholick Church and there we find it They not only delivered to us the traditionary Doctrines of a Trinity which had always been taught in the Catholick Church but the Traditionary Exposition of those Scriptures too whereon this Doctrine is founded and they being so near the Head and Fountain of Tradition the Apostolick Age their Authority is venerable and a modest and prudent Man will not reject any Interpretation of Scripture which relates to Articles of Faith and is unanimously delivered by the Ancient Fathers if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense for though a Text should fairly bear two different Interpretations that is most likely to be true which has been from the beginning taught by the Catholick Church And I challenge this Author to name any Text which is alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned Trinitarians which has not been used to the same purpose by many or most or all the ancient Fathers who have alleadged those Texts But his Conclusion from hence that therefore the Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Trinity in Unity because the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts to another Sense is very pleasant and shows what a great Master of Reason he is for his Argument is this the Scripture does not compel us to believe any thing while there are other men who expound the Scripture to a contrary Sense and thus I am sure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing for it will be hard to name any Text which concerns any Article of Faith how plain and express soever it be but what has been expounded to a contrary Sense by one Heretick or other I would ask this Author whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God in his Sense of it that is but One who is God If it does not why does he believe it and insist so peremptorily on it in defiance of the whole Catholick Church and yet how can the Scripture compel him to this when the Catholick Church and the Catholick Doctors in all Ages have expounded Scripture to a contrary sense that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God At this rate when Men differ in their Expositions of Scripture the Scripture does not compel us to believe either and thus notwithstanding the Scripture we may believe nothing If the Scripture have a determined Sense we are bound to believe that Sense and must answer it to God and to our Saviour if we do not whoever expounds it otherwise and therefore when it is said in the Creed that we are compelled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity by the Christian Verity to acknowledge each Person by himself to be God and Lord the meaning is not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it or to expound Scripture to this sense but that the true Sense and Exposition of Scripture does make this Acknowledgment necessary if we will believe as the Scripture teaches and this may be true whatever the Unitarians or any Learned Trinitarians teach He adds That the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not a clash of Reason with Scripture but whether we ought to interpret holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men Now this is all sham and falacy for to expound Scripture by Reason may signifie two very differeent things 1. To use our own Reason to find out the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture 2. To expound Scripture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason In the first sense he expounds Scripture according to Reason who considers the Use and Propriety of Words the Scope and Design of the place what goes before and what follows and how one place of Scripture is consistent with another just in the same way as we find out the sense of any Humane Writing and he who does not thus expound Scripture by Reason expounds it like a fool that is if he put such a sense upon it as the words will not bear or the scope and design of the Text will not admit and as no man would think of who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Text and whether they or we in this sense expound Scripture according or contrary to Reason like fools or like wise men shall be examined presently As for the other Sense of Expounding Scripture according to Reason that is in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason we allow this too so far that we must not expound Scripture to such a sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of Natural Reason for though God reveals such things to us as Natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth can never contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by Natural Reason can never be false in Revelation but then as I observed before we must be sure that there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out of uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge As to keep to the Matter of our present Dispute Natural Reason tells us That there is and can be but One Supreme God the Soveraign Lord of the World and should any man pretend to prove from Scripture that there are Three Gods this would be an express Contradiction to the Natural Belief of One God and therefore we must reject this Sense of Scripture as contrary to Reason but to prove from Scripture that there is but One God and that there are Three who are this One God this is no Contradiction to Reason which teaches but One God for Scripture teaches the same and all Trinitarians acknowledge the same and must do so if they believe the Athanasian Creed and therefore the belief of the Trinity does not contradict the natural belief of One God Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction but what Principle of Natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does
spoken of Christ yet the Authority of Christ and his Apostles who have made this Application is as good a Reason to believe that they were meant of Christ as to believe any other part of the Gospel Let us then consider how he answers such Texts What the Psalmist says Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity therefore God even thy God hath anointed Thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ But unto the Son he saith thy Throne O God c. To this he Answers In the Hebrew and in the Greek 't is God is thy Throne i. e. thy seat resting place establishment for ever If he had only said it may be so he had said right but it is false to say it is so For the Hebrew Elohim may be either the Nominative or the Vocative Case and so the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an Attick Vocative and so is used by the Septuagint 22 Psalm 1. ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And it is evident the Septuagint the Vulgar Latine the Chaldee Paraphrase the Syriack and Arabick Versions took it for the Vocative Case and thus the Christian Church has always understood it and this is the most natural Construction when it immediately follows a Pronoun which has no other immediate Relative Thy Throne O God that is O God thy Throne is for ever and ever And thus the Apostle must understand it To the Son he saith Thy Throne O God where O God must be referred to the Son and thy to God and the sense he gives of it is absurd and what we have no Example of in Scripture that God is a Throne God indeed is called a Rock a Fortress a high Tower which is expounded by a Deliverer but a Throne here signifies a Kingdom as is evident from the following words and to say that God is the Throne and the Kingdom of Christ is to Subject the Father to the Son for a King sits upon his Throne and governs his Kingdom The Apostle in the next Verse cites another glorious Testimony which God hath given to his Son And Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thine hands they shall perish but thou remainest and they all shall wax old as doth a Garment and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail This is so plain a Testimony to the Divinity of our Saviour if these words be allowed to be applied by the Apostle to Christ that our Author is forced to deny it He says The Context has this sense And thou Lord that is and in another Text of the Psalms it is said Thou Lord which is certainly true if he had added but One word more viz. to the Son And in another Text of the Psalms it is said to the Son And thou Lord hast laid the Foundations of the Earth for so the Context requires us to supply it if we will make sense of it for the Apostle observes in what different Language God speaks of the Angels and to the Son Of the Angels he saith who maketh his Angels Spirits and his Ministers a flaming fire but to the Son he saith thy Throne O God is for ever and ever And to the Son he saith Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth But to which of the Angels said he at any time Sit on my right hand until I make thine Enemies thy Footstool This is easie and natural but to apply those words to the Father Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth c. is to break the whole Context is contrary to the Apostles design and no good sense can be made of it and this I think is to ridicule Scripture to make it Nonsense or very bad disturbed and incoherent sense when there is no need of it but to serve an Hypothesis which the Text was designed to confute He says Tho. Aquinas rightly acknowledged that the words of both these Texts may be understood of God only not of Christ but this is false as indeed he seldom cites any Author but he corrupts him for Thomas says this Text may be understood of either but if you understand it of the Father then by in the beginning you must understand the Son who he says is called the beginning Thou Lord in the beginning that is in or by the Son hast laid the Foundations of the Earth for he saw the Context required that these words should be applied to Christ but he thought it indifferent whether they were applied to him in whole or in part since both ways he is made the Creator of the World which answers the Apostles design and though I think Thomas was mistaken yet this makes nothing to our Authors purpose Thus what the Psalmist says of God Thou hast ascended on high thou hast led captivity captive thou hast received Gifts for Men St. Paul attributes to Christ. Here our Historian spends a great many words to no purpose about Christ's discent into the Grave and into Hell and his ascending into Heaven to fill all things or as he says it might be better rendred to fulfil all things that is all the Prophesies of himself and others concerning his Death and Ascension into the highest Heavens But how does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie all Prophesies or how does his Ascension into Heaven fulfil all Prophesies As for the Gifts given to men he says in the Psalms they are literally meant of God and of Christ only by way of Prophesie or rather of Emblem or Accommodation which he learnedly proves because the Gifts the Apostle speaks of were not given or received till about One thousand years after David 's time Now what of all this we readily grant that ascending on high the leading captivity captive the receiving gifts for men which the Psalmist speaks of were not the same with the Ascension of Christ into Heaven his leading captivity captive and giving Gifts to men but were Types and Figures of it but the single Question is Whether Christ be that God of whom the Psalmist says that he ascended on high c. if he be not St. Paul has abus'd us for he applies that to Christ which was not said of him if he be we have what we desire that Christ is God but this which was the only Question he says not one word to Men may be Types and Figures as David and others were of Christ and in this case what was said of David as a Typical Person may be applied to the Person of Christ but God himself can be no Type for the Type is always less perfect than the
the Orphicks by Heraclitus and Zeno as Tertullian and Lactantius affirm Nay that the Stoicks and Platonists and especially Philo Iudaeus uses it in the same sense who attributes the making of the World to the Word which he calls the Name the Image the Son of God To which purpose he before cited Rabbi Eliezel that God and his Name were before the World was made and explains this by the sayings of some Fathers as all meaning the same thing and we know they meant by it a Divine Person The Wor d was with God Grotius does say that this is opposed to the Words being made Flesh and appearing in the world but he was far enough from thinking that these words have only a negative sense that to be with God signifies only not to be in the world for he tells us what the positive sense is that with God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Father the very sense which our Historian before rejected as absurd and explains it by what Wisdom says 8 Prov. 30. Then I was by him as one brought up with him and I was daily his delight rejoycing alway before him which he does not think a Prosopopoea but spoken of a subsisting Person The Word was God Here Grotius produces numerous Testimonies to prove that that Divine Person who is called the Word not the Faculty of Wisdom and Power in God is God He says indeed that the ancient Hebrews and Primitive Christians teach that when an Angel is in Scripture called Iehovah it is not a meer Angel sed cui adfuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Angel to whom the Word is joyned or united not as the Historian says to whom the Divine Wisdom has been in an extraordinary degree communicated that is an extraordinary wise Angel for there is no other sense in it but I know not what Grotius meant by the Union or Presence of the Word with the Angel but I know the Primitive Christians asserted That the Angel called Iehovah was the Word Grotius assigns this Reason of the Repetition that because the Evangelist had called the Word God he would have us understand that he is so God that he is also with God that is that the Word is not all that God is but only One Person in the Godhead which he observes that Origen and others after him called the Distinction of Hipostasis tho' the Primitive Christians and Athanasius himself used that word Hipostases in a different sense and the Christians seemed to take up this sense of it from the Platonists But whatever becomes of the Phrase this is plainly what Grotius meant by the Word 's not being all that is God that is that he is but One Person in the Godhead not that he is but One communicable Attribute in God This is sufficient to show how our Historian has abus'd this Great Man when he represents him as making the Word only the Divine Wisdom and Power not a Divine Person and all his other mis-representations depend on this and need not be particularly examined But I perceive our Socinian Historian is ashamed of that Exposition which Socinus and his genuine Disciples give of this Chapter which had been a sign of some Understanding and Modesty had he not invented as foolish and sensless an Interpretation himself for it is not Grotius's but his own Socinus was sensible that the Word must signifie a Person but would allow it to be no more than a Man called the Word not with respect to his Nature but Office as the greatest and most excellent Prophet who reveals God's will to the world Our Historian was convinced that the Word must be something Divine which was with God from the beginning of the world and was not different from God but is God and did create all things at first and was in a sense Incarnate was made Flesh did abide on and inhabit an human Person the Person of Iesus So far is very well But then he will not allow the Word to be a Person but a Divine Quality or Accident the Wisdom or Power of God and the fault of this is that it is unintelligible Nonsense to describe the Word so pompously as distinct from God but with God in the beginning and himself God and to ascribe the making of the world to him and tell us that he was made Flesh and all this while the world is only a communicable Attribute in God what we call the Faculty of Reason in Men This is a new way of making a God of a Prosopopoea and incarnating a Prosopopoea which must be a very figurative God and Incarnation But I observed before that when any Vertue or Power or Faculty is spoken of as a Person what is said of the Vertue or Power belongs to the Person in whom that Vertue and Power is and what that is said to do is done by the Person or else it is not a figurative but a false and absurd form of speech As when Charity is said to suffer long and is kind the meaning is a charitable man is so a Prosopopoea is easily understood and conveys its sense clearly and elegantly to our minds but where there is nothing but Nonsense at the bottom it must not be made a figure for a figurative Speech is good sense Let us then examine his Prosopopoea by this Rule In the beginning was the Word that is the Wisdom and Power of God and this Wisdom and Power of God was with God that is God was with himself and this Wisdom and Power of God was God that is God was God what sense I beseech you is there in this That the Wisdom and Power of God made the world I grant is sense because God did make the world but if there be any sense in the words being made Flesh it is certain that God is Incarnate For the Wisdom and Power of God which is with God and is God cannot be Incarnate unless God be Incarnate Unless we can divide God from his Wisdom and separate the Wisdom of God which was with him from the beginning from God to be Incarnate in Man The Wisdom of God can no more be Incarnate unless God can be Incarnate then the Wisdom of an Angel can be Incarnate without the Incarnation of the Angel and thus this Socinian is turned Sabellian and Patropassian However I confess we are beholden to this Historian for he has given up this place to us which is one of the most express places for the Divinity of our Saviour He allows that the beginning is the beginning of all things that Word signifies something Divine even the Wisdom and Power of God that to be with God is to be intimately present with him that to be God is to be God himself That all things were made by him is meant of the first Creation of the world that this Divine Word was made Flesh and did abide on the human Person of Christ Jesus the only difference between us is whether
to God as our Historian will have it by a communication of power over Diseases Devils the Grave the Winds the Seas c. which dwindles the form of God into just nothing for according to them he had no inherent Power to do this but God did it at his word as he did for other Prophets and therefore this is no form no likeness of God at all for he did not work Miracles as God does by an inherent Power but God wrought Miracles for him yet suppose this how is it an Argument of his humility that he committed not robbery by equalling himself to God as he renders the words which our Translators render and which the ancient Fathers expound to the same sense he thought it not robbery to be equal to God that is says he did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God or equal to God though if this were robbery both Christ and his Apostles were guilty of it for Christ declared I and my Father are One which the Jews understood and they did not mistake him in it was to make himself God and the Apostles do this frequently in express terms as I have already shown but to allow his Interpretation I only ask whether Christ if he would could have committed this Robbery whether upon their supposition of his being a meer Man if he had arrogated to himself to be God God would have permitted this and suffered him to have wrought Miracles to cheat the world into this belief if he could not it is ridiculous to talk of his humility in not doing it and I am sure it is ridiculous upon their Hypothesis to say that he could But he took upon him the form of a Servant i. e. became like a Servant possessing nothing of his own and suffering injuries and reproaches c. But how did he take this form upon him which must signifie his own free and voluntary choice when he did not take it but was made so This was the Condition which he did not choose but was made for and what humility was this for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God and so great a Minister as to be in the form of God as he says to be glorious for Miracles and admired as the great power of God especially when he was to be exalted into Heaven for it and advanced above all Principalites and Powers This is such Humility as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most glorious Angel But he was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself c. that is says this Historian being made like other men in the common similitude of man and I pray how should a man be made but like a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death i. e. notwithstanding that he could have delivered himself from them yet was he obedient even to evil Magistrates and without resistance under-went that death which their wickedness and malice prepared for him or rather which God had decred for him which his hand and counsel determined before to be done and therefore which he could not which he ought not to avoid The plain Case is this All the Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth and Life and Death were so punctually foretold by the Prophets and so peremtorily decreed by God that after he was come into the world there was no place for his choice and election he could not shew either his love or his humility in choosing Poverty or Death and therefore if it were matter of his free choice and a demonstration of his great Humility and Love as the Apostles says it was he chose it before he came into the world He was in the form of God equal to God rich before and chose to become Man a Minister a Servant and to submit to a mean Life and an infamous Death for our sakes and this indeed was a mighty Love and stupendious Humility in the Son of God This we can all understand it is a venerable Mystery and a powerful Argument of our Religion but Socinianism makes Nonsense of it The Faith and Worship of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion and if Christ be no more than a Man as the Socinians teach it is a direct Contradiction both to Natural and to the Mosaical Religion which condemn the worship of any Creature and all Religious Trust and Affiance in them It is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice or which is much the same retains the Name of a Priest and a Sacrifice without any proper Atonement or Expiation which is a very unfit Religion for sinners But that which is most to my present purpose is that it makes a God of a meer Creature and makes a Mediator and King without any inherent Power to save Sinners to protect his Church to govern or to judge the World which is a meer Pageant and Shadow of a King To make a Mediator or Mediatory King who shall be a fit Object of Religious Hope and Trust and Worship as I have already explained it at large he must have a Personal Knowledge of all our particular Wants and an Inherent Power to help us and though his Humane Nature is confined to Heaven his Knowledge and Power must extend to all the world as he himself tells us after his Resurrection All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth particularly he must have Power to protect his Church on Earth from all her Enemies to restrain and govern the malice of Men and Devils to forgive sins to give the fresh Supplies of Grace to raise the Dead to judge the World to condemn bad men to Hell and to bestow Heaven upon his sincere Disciples Let us then consider what account our Socinian Historian gives of this matter and what a kind of Mediator and King he makes of Christ. Sometimes to abuse the World he tells us the Socinians generally not only grant but earnestly contend that Christ is to be worshipped and prayed to because God hath they say by his inhabiting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ a faculty of knowing all things and an ability to relieve all our wants Now if they mean honestly that Christ has an inherent Personal Knowledge and Power whereby he knows and can do all things this is to ascribe true Divine Perfections to him for such are infinite Knowledge and infinite Power and that is to make him a true and real God and I think there is not greater Nonsense in the World than a Made-God than a Creature-God as I showed before But it is plain our Historian is none of these Socinians for all his Expositions lean another way and in the same place he disputes earnestly against praying to Christ and says that those Gentlemen he must mean the Socinian Gentlemen who are for praying to Christ especially the Polonian Zealots say that Christ's Mediation