in a great measure from the jarring and disagreement of two natures so closely united and accompanied all the while with a vehement desire to submit in the midst of as vehement an aversation to it as hath been already declared and lastly the vital and inseparable Vnion of the Human and Divine life with one another these were the things that did inhance the merit and value of that Sacrifice and therefore in this case the Divine and Human Nature are considered as joyntly and equally concerned Thirdly and lastly in the business of the Intercession at the Right hand of God God that is the divine Nature cannot properly be said to intercede with himself and yet the Intercession of the human without so close and vital a Connexion with the divine would be every whit as insignificant and unavailable as without the same Vnion the Sacrifice of himself would have been besides that it would perhaps be inexcusable were it not for this Vnion For one meer man a finite and a little Creature like our selves to take upon him to supplicate and intercede for all the rest so that as his human Nature entitules him to the Priesthood for the God and the Priest are supposed to be two things so it is the Vnion of that Nature with the divine that makes him an High Priest that Vnion is his entrance into the Holy of Holies and inhances the price and value of his Intercession and therefore in this third and last particular also the divine and human Nature are considered as acting joyntly together and constituting one Person resulting from the Vnion of them both And now having laid down so clear a Notion of the blessed Trinity I cannot see what is wanting to give it all the advantage which it very well deserves for it is not only very consonant to Scripture but it hath likewise so clear and so strong a Foundation in the reason of things that when both these meet as they do here together it must be acknowledged to be more then a possible Idea and that it is neither more nor less then the very truth it self and a truth that seems to lie so plain that it is much more wonderful it should be concealed thus long then that at last it should be discovered As for the Scripture what more plain then that those Texts I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and the Father are one may by this notion be very clearly explained for the human nature of Christ is absorped and swallowed up in the Divine of God the Father and does on the other hand by vertue of its intimate Vnion imbibe and take in the Divine Nature into it self as far as its capacity will reach which it does much further then by reason of its littleness and finite Circumscription it may seem to do because the parts of the Divine Extension being all of them similar and actually inseparable by reason that the whole is commensurate to an infinite space whatsoever is united by an unity of life and selfconsciousness to any part is at the same time effectually united to that indivisible life which is but one and the same self-consciousness and self-enjoyment through the whole extension And so I and the Father are one that is one in the common species of immaterial nature one by mutual penetration and imbibition one by an unity of self-consciousness and reciprocal feeling of each others life one by an unity of affection and will and one in many cases by an unity of operation and mutual concurrence to the same effect neither is there any other possible difficulty to be started in this case unless it be how two lives can be so twisted and intimately interwoven together as to become one life and to constitute one Person to which it may be answered First that in fact it is true that an immaterial and material Nature may be so Vnited as is plain in every human composition consisting of Soul and Body and that there is a greater congruity of one immaterial Nature to another then there can be of that which is called life and activity to that which is utterly destitute and devoid of both which is the case of matter which yet by its union with an immaterial substance is made to taste and feel it self to become the subject and seat either of pleasure or pain and to concur with the other towards the constituting of a common Person resulting from them both Secondly upon supposition that one life is capable of being imprest and influenced by another as there is more reason that it should then that that which is utterly devoid of life should be capable of the same impressions this is enough to constitute one common person for by a person nothing else is meant but a self-conscious nature and therefore where there is in two personalities a mutual enjoyment or feeling of each others life there arises a compound personality from the mutual reciprocation enjoyment or imbibition of two several lives acting upon and influencing each other and being brought to a perfect Harmony and entire consent of understanding and will and it is sufficient in this case that the difficulties in the union of the two natures to make up and constitute the second person in the Blessed Trinity are not greater no nor so great neither as those in the union of our own soul and body of which notwithstanding we are intimately and perfectly conscious to our selves Thirdly there is no way to expound several places of Scripture with any plausibility or shew of truth but by admitting such an union as this which seems in those places to be so plainly asserted Fourthly and lastly in the Sympathies of friendship whether in joy or grief and in the mutual complacency and satisfaction which entire friends experience in the conversation and company of each other in their common sentiments common wishes and common designs there is something very like this union which we contend for though it be far from being so perfect and entire It being therefore so rational to believe that there may be such a personal union of two immaterial natures together to constitute the Person of the Son that other of these two natures or persons so united to a certain subtle subeternal and aethereal matter to constitute the third Person of the Blessed Trinity which is called the Holy Ghost must be admitted as a possible union because the vital union of an immaterial nature to a material is no more then we do all of us every day experience in our selves as hath been already observed The Father is the simple divine substance by himself the Son is the vital Vnion of an human soul to the substance and Person of God the Father and the Holy Ghost is nothing else but an Aethereal and Emanative matter vitally united to both the former That which makes them all to be God is the same Numerical Divine substance belonging to them all and that which
makes the distinction of the Persons is the addition of a Created immaterial nature in the second Person of the Blessed Trinity of a Created material one in the third and the substraction or precision of both of these in the first The Son is said to be begotten of the Father being a similar immaterial and as it were univocal effect of his Power and Will and the Holy Ghost to proceed from them both because though the human nature of Christ and the subtle matter which makes the body of that Person which is called the Holy Ghost be both of them emanative and by consequence eternal yet the emanation seems more natural from one immaterial nature to another then from immaterial to material and so the Son is at least prior natura then the Holy Ghost though not cognitione and the subtle matter which is one part of the third Person of the Blessed Trinity being Created though from all Eternity yet in some sense for the sake of the Son as hath been already declared and being also produced by the Father by a contemporary consent of will in the Son or in the human nature though they be supposed contemporary to one another yet this is enough to make it no improper way of expression to say that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son though in this I do not justifie the heats on either side between the Greek and Latin Churches neither do I think the Schism to be the less inexcusable because the Latins in a matter of this subtlety were in the right I do not deny but that the Father or the simple divine substance is always vitally united to the human nature of Christ and also to a certain subtle and aethereal matter in that manner which hath been already declared but yet notwithstanding the real distinction of the Father from the Son or of the first Person of the Blessed Trinity from the second is always as really and as clearly preserved as if in the first case there were no second Person or no vital union with the human nature or as if in the second there were no third or no vital union of the divine and human nature with the aethereal matter for in the first place as hath been already largely represented there are some operations of the simple divine substance to which the human nature being but finite cannot adaequately extend and in this case that substance is of necessity considered as a Person acting by it self and in the second notwithstanding the vital union of one or more immaterial nature to a material yet there are some abstracted operations wherein the immaterial substances do perfectly withdraw themselves from any intercourse or communication with matter as is plain in those operations of the human soul which are purely speculative and intellectual in which the animal concupisciblâ— or plastick life have no share but they are purely the operations of separated and abstracted Spirits and such as would undoubtedly accompany the mind of Man though it were disentangled from this mortal body and yet the vital union is not interrupted all this while but the digestion and Animal secretion still goes on the bloud still circulates and the Plastic faculties perform their office in men not yet arrived to their full growth as well as in Embrios not yet attained to their just form and shape in their Mothers Womb not that I would be thought to compare these things with one another but only in general to represent that an immaterial nature tho vitally united to a material may yet have operations purely spiritual and altogether abstracted in which that union is not at all concerned and those operations which are performed on the one hand by the abstracted and on the other by the Compound and Heterogeneous nature may well enough be considered as the actions of two Jeveral and distinct persons as in St. Paul's description of the strife and contention between the Flesh and Spirit Rom. 7. 15. That which I do I allow not for what I would that do I not but what I hate that do I. Where it is manifest that the soul of man considered by it self in its most inward and abstracted speculation is considered as one person and as united and vitally interwoven with a body or vehicle of matter as another and this is enough to show that a compound and a simple person are by no means the same or to defend the personality of the Holy Ghost as distinct from the simple substance of God the Father Further that by the Holy Ghost nothing else is meant but the vital union of an aethereal or subtle matter to the simple and original divine substance of God the Father is clear not only from the words themselves by which it is expressed in Hebrew Rouach and in Greek Pneuma which signifie nothing else but a subtle matter but also from the History of the Creation where the spirit of God is said to have moved upon the face of the Waters in the Hebrew it is Merachepheth which the Rabbins interpret of the incubation of any bird or fowl upon the young or eggs by which it is manifest that they understood the Spirit of God not simply of any wind or subtle matter whatsoever but of such as was animated with a divine life and fitly disposed by brooding upon the Chaos to make it fruitful and fertile and when God spake to Moses out of the burning bush when he gave the Law upon Mount Sinai in Fire and Smoak when he went before the Camp of the Israelites like a Cloud by day and like a Flame by night when such flaming and fiery apparitions as these are so frequently called in Scripture by the name of the glory of God all these are meant of that subtle matter which being animated and enlivened by a divine life is called Rouach hachodesh pneuma hagion the Holy Spirit the spirit or breath or wind of God so also when Moses desired to see the face of God but was denied for this reason that no Man could see the face of God and live but yet was permitted to see his back parts which were nothing else but a certain vigorous and piercing flame the meaning is plainly this that no Man in this life can converse with the naked essence or immaterial nature of God but his back parts or that aethereal and subtle matter to which from all eternity he hath been vitally united these may possibly fall under human cognizance as they did under that of Moses even in this life and this in truth is the main if not only business of this subtle matter besides the forming of Ideas in it as hath been already suggested that being animated and informed by the life of God it is the instrument of the divine power in its external operations thus as God being cloathed with this subtle matter did incubate and brood upon the Mass and order and dispose its several parts as seemed best
which distinguishes the Persons notwithstanding the same singular Essence belong in common to them both shall be considered more largely by and by so that if we reflect upon this Passage of Marcellus which is the only thing that can derive an Imputation of Heresie upon him and consider first that it is no more than the Language of the Scripture it self and secondly who it was to whom this Epistle was directed in his own just and necessary Vindication it will appear in both respects not only charitable but highly just and reasonable to believe that Marcellus meant nothing but what was truly Orthodox and unquestionably sound and it is strange to me that Petavius should discern so much Art in this Confession of Marcellus as if it were written so that it might possibly bear a Sabellian Interpretation notwithstanding that he hath taken no notice of this Passage in it which is the only thing that looks that way And what if Eusebius condemned him in his Writings and by his interest deposed him from his Bishoprick certainly the Opinion of the Bishops that sat in Council concerning his Affair and his Restoration to his See which was consequent upon it is more considerable in his Justification then the other can redound to his prejudice or disgrace they did not condemn him after the example of Eusebius but on the contrary censured Eusebius for what he had done which is a very great testimony of Antiquity in his behalf besides that notwithstanding some of those excerpta which Eusebius pretends to have taken out of Marcellus cannot perhaps be reconciled to an Orthodox Sence yet since it was the Opinion of so many Ancient and unquestionably Orthodox Bishops with whom Petavius himself in part agrees that Eusebius was possest with a violent prejudice against his adversary and that he laid hold of the most trifling occasions of things that would by no means bear it to run him down which the Learned Jesuite confesses him to have done how can we tell but he might misquote him also for there is nothing more ordinary even in our dayes notwithstanding that since Printing came in and so many Copies are immediately spread abroad it is more dangerous to do it now then it was then and may be more effectually remedied by Printing and dispersing a true and impartial representation of the case Nay that there was indeed a great deal of foul play in the behaviour of Marcellus his adversaries towards him of which adversaries Eusebius of Caesarea was the chief appears from the great praecaution of Marcellus as to that very Epistle which he sent to Julius for he took a Copy of it for himself before he sent it away and he beggs likewise of Julius to send faithful Copies of it to the Bishops within his Jurisdiction for the prevention of mistakes and that the world might be satisfyed from himself what manner of man he was which would have been a needless thing had there not been some ill practices made use of to represent him amiss and to make him say what he never intended That Marcellus was a firm and resolute Assertor of the singular Divine Essence in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity may be proved undenyably from the words of his Confession For first he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Godhead of the Father and Son are divisible and inseparable from each other which is as much as to say in other words as Athanasius himself did sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father which can be understood of nothing but the Numerical Essence as I have shown already and so I find since Dionysius Petavius to have applyed it before me but now upon supposition of a specifical Vnity there will as really be Two Godheads and by consequence Two Gods as any two things specifically united are numerically distinct from one another and yet this was that which Marcellus plainly endeavoured to avoid by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Godhead of the Father and the Son was inseparable and indivisible as it appears by what is immediately subjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is He that separates or divides the Son that is the Word from God the Father Almighty it is necessary either that he assert Two Gods which is repugnant to Scripture or that he deny the Son to be God which seems to be every whit as inconsistent with the Catholic Faith as the other In which Words it is as plain as Words can make it that he affirms there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Almighty and that Christ himself is that one Almighty or that he does not differ from him because upon supposition that he did one of these two things must be granted either that Christ was not God which he rejects as repugnant to the Scripture or that there must be at once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Two Gods at least Numerically distinct which is all the sence in which it is possible to conceive of Two Gods supposing them both to be Omnipresent Omnipotent and Infinitely Perfect Beings and otherwise then this they are not properly Gods For they will both of them have the same Attributes and the same Perfections and so can be only Numerically distinct from one another from whence it follows that if the Numerical distinction be not of its self sufficient to introduce a Plurality of Gods then there can be no Polytheisme in the world that is Polytheism strictly and properly so called and understood of several Beings infinitely perfect Besides that the Specifick Vnity as it is in it self perfect Non-sence as hath been already sufficiently declared so is it perfectly inconsistent with that notion of the Trinity to which the Assertors of the Specific Vnity did themselves subscribe For the Son as such is begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost as such proceeds or flows from the Father and the Son so that here is a manifest and a confest Subordination of the one Person to the other and the Son though he be begotten by an eternal Generation though it be true as the Antient Confessions are used to express it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there was no time when he was not yet it is manifest that an eternal Generation argues an eternal Dependance upon an eternal Parent and an eternal Emanation or Procession an eternal Dependance upon an eternal Cause so that here is self-existence on the one hand and Dependance on the other and these two are so far from being specifically united that they do toto genere and toto coelo distare and as the Son hath an eternal dependance on the Father as his eternal Parent so is the Holy Ghost proceeding from both with respect to the Son posterior natura though not cognitione as the Logicians speak because there is no time when he was not so that the Son and Holy Ghost that is that Characteristic mark or difference whatsoever it is
by which the Son and Holy Ghost are distinguished from the Father and from each other is on both hands a Creature though it be an eternal one depending upon and eternally flowing from an eternal cause for that which constitutes the Person of the Son is the human nature united to the Divine and that which fills up the nature and notion of the Holy Ghost is a certain subtle subeternal matter united and incorporated with the Divine and Human Nature and animated by the common life of both and yet though these two things by which the Persons are distinguished from each other and from God the Father who is the Source and Fountain of the Godhead are without all question Creatures of his making yet the whole Person which results on either hand from the Vnion of the Created and Vncreated Nature together is truly and properly God for by God nothing else is or can be understood but a Person acted and animated by a life that is truly and properly Divine and such without question both of these Persons are otherwise there can be no vital Vnion between the created and uncreated Nature in them which is that upon which their Divine personality depends and as they may all three as well the one as the other be truly and properly said to be God so also notwithstanding what hath been said yet is the Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate that is the Godhead which is in the whole Person the eternal simple abstracted Life in the one the cause of life and personality and the principal ingredient of life and personality in the two other which are Persons of a Dissimilar Heterogeneous and Compounded Nature and the whole Person is rightly denominated from its principal and chiefest Life is in all three not only Vncreate but Numerically the same so that there are not three Vncreates but one Vncreate nor three Incomprehensibles but one Incomprehensible nor three Gods but one God as it is expresly asserted in that Creed which goes how truly I do not now dispute under the Name of Athanasius and was allowed for Orthodox before the Lateran Council But yet as the rest of the Trinitarian Fathers when they were pressed by the Arians or other Heretics or disputed and argued the case too nicely with themselves were used to recur to the Specific Vnity and the Emperichoresis and the Vnity of Integration and such like very improper and inadequate expedients to help themselves so Marcellus being equally at a loss how to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity being a firm and resolute Assertor of the Vty of the Godhead and disdaining to make use of such Vnphilosophical ways of solving the difficulty which was in effect but to make a new riddle instead of explaining the old though he could not for his life being as he was a very honest and impartial Person bring himself to doubt but that the Language of the Scripture in its most plain and obvious Interpretation did assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost yet at some times being startled with the difficulty of the thing he would say with something of doubt and hesitation betwixt the difficulty of the thing and the plainness of the Scripture in asserting and maintaining it that the Scripture did seem to say thus much for so in the Confession sent to Julius he says of those that denied the Divinity of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to be repugnant to the Orthodox Faith grounded upon the Scriptures for that is his meaning as it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so the Evangelist St. John tells us that the word was God but yet it must be confessed that this Interpretation which I have put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the only possible Interpretation neither as I do verily believe so agreeable to the Sentiments of Marcellus as another which I will now mention and that is that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not as if he had spoken doubtfully that the Scripture seems to look that way as if Christ were a Divine Person as well as God the Father but that he really is so and that this appears plainly to be the sence of the Scriptures for so the word seems to have been used in that place of the Author to the Hebrews where God is said to have made the things that are seen out of things which did not appear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is out of things which really were not and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place are things not which barely appear or are supposed to be but which have a real undoubted and positive existence and in this sense the Adjectives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used not for things which are only in fancy or opinion but which have a real and a manifest Existence and are discovered by their own light and it is plain that this sense is most agreeable to what follows in Marcellus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I saith he have learnt or know for certain that the Son is the indivisible or inseparable Power of the Father for our Saviour himself even our Lord Jesus Christ saith I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and the Father are one and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father also which citations of his as they cannot so clearly and so naturally be applied to any thing as to the Numerical Essence so when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know or I have learnt for certain that the Son c. The Rules of Connection do require that this be spoken in opposition to the two Opinions just mentioned before one of which asserted a Plurality of Gods and the other denyed the Divinity of Christ and being exprest in such peremptory dogmatical and categorical Terms this is a plain and undenyable Testimony of Marcellus to himself that he was for the singular existent Essence which he did not only maintain in this Epistle to Pope Julius but he tells him it had always been his constant Doctrine for so he goes on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Faith I having received from the Scriptures and Tradition I preach in the Church as well as I have owned and asserted it in this Epistle to you Nevertheless for that he would not presume as others did when they were prest upon it by their Adversaries or intangl'd in their own private Meditations to explain the Modus of the Trinity for this reason he was charged by his Enemies with denying the thing it self as if in effect he had asserted but one divine Person because he stuck to one Numerical Substance without so much as pretending to explain how it was possible for a Trinity of Persons at this rate to exist this was the reason why Athanasius himself would sometimes speak with doubt and hesitancy concerning him or at
the same time therefore several Persons indued with several individuating differences cannot be partakers of the same common nature which is false as I will now immediately show you proceeding with all imaginable caution that the intellectual System being a wild country and very full of woods I may not unadvisedly fall into an Ambuscade by the following well weigh'd and well considered steps First I say that that which is in it self one cannot be conceived as three without division Secondly that those things which are in themselves distinctly three cannot be conceived as one without composition Thirdly that the Divine Nature being infinitely and immutably perfect is likewise simple and uncompounded uncapable of division on the one hand or composition on the other Fourthly by God the Father I understand that simple similar and Omnipresent Divine Substance or space endued with all possible power goodness and wisdom whose parts by reason of the Omnipresence of the whole are even by cogitation inseparable from each other or that Omnipresent Divine activity and life which is as much and more simply one in and with it self then any other secondary or derivative life can be being all over nothing else but one entire Will Vnderstanding Goodness Fruitfulness or Power of Action and Production which being only that which is truly and properly God is therefore called God the Father as being the most simple in it self and also the source and fountain of Divinity in the two subordinate Persons for the Persons are not equally perfect as to their whole nature although the Divine Substance which makes them all to be God be in all three Numerically and individually the same Fifthly by God the Son I understand the second Person of the Blessed Trinity resulting from the Vnion of the humane Nature with the Divine Substance which Divine Substance being endued and furnished with a life by it self is for that reason a Person by it self simply and abstractly considered for this is the most general and comprehensive notion of a Person that it is a being endued with life or with self-consciousness or self-sensation to which Divine Life the Human being added and being influenced animated and acted by it and vitally united to it there arises from hence a compound life which is distinct from the simple which is a life by it self without the accession of the other and if a life and a person be the very same then another sort of life makes another sort of Person and another sort of person is another person that is a compound Person which is no more the same with simple then unity and composition are themselves the same But to make the solidity of this notion the more plainly to appear it is to be considered that though these two natures the Divine and the Human are always vitally united to one another so as they feel and enjoy the same common life yet there are some cases to be met with wherein the Father that is the Divine and Simple Substance acts as a Person distinctly by it self without the concurrence of the Human with it and there are others wherein they act in concurrence together as if they had but one Will one Vnderstanding one simple and undivided Power of Action and Operation To the first of these Heads there are the following particulars unquestionably belonging First when the Father is said to beget and the Son to be begotten which he did from all Eternity by way of Emanation as it is very easie for any Man to conceive he might do for whatsoever is not in it self impossible and contradictory to be done or performed is a possible object of the Divine Power and was so without question from all Eternity because the Divine Nature was always absolutely and infinitely perfect and by consequence the sphere of possibility to which it is coextended for there is nothing possible which is not so a Divine Power was from all Eternity exactly the same though there had not been that eternal congruity and disposition which there appears to have been in the Divine Nature to the production of the Human by that means as it were to exemplifie and enjoy it self in its most perfect image and resemblance and the Father when he is said to have begotten the Son it is not by any means so to be understood as if one Divine Substance could beget another which is the very height of Non-sense and Blasphemy into the bargain but these two things are manifestly couched under it and to be understood by it First that the Father that is the simple and similar ubiquitary Divine Substance did from all Eternity by way of emanation produce that Human soul or Personality which was the pre-existing soul of Christ before his Incarnation and before all Worlds being the first born of every Creature Secondly he did likewise from all Eternity constitute a vital Vnion betwixt his own simple and ubiquitary Substance and this eternally begotten or emanatively produced Human Soul so as they were made to feel and enjoy one another and where ever there is an Vnity of self-consciousness and reciprocal enjoyment of each others life so as the human life does at the same time participate and share in the Divine this is enough to constitute one common person resulting from the vital Vnion of the Divine and Human Nature into this common life and mutual enjoyment for an Vnity of life is the most strict inseparable and indivisible sort of Vnity that can possibly be conceived and yet notwithstanding the Human Nature though it were eternally produced yet it did not nor could not possibly produce it self which is to suppose a thing or person to be before it is neither did it or could it possibly unite it self in that entire and close manner with the Divine but in both these respects the Human Nature is originally passive though to the latter it may be supposed to concur by a consent of Will though not of Power and God the Father that is the simple and original Divine Substance is considered as a person acting by himself In the second place when the Father is said to send and the Son to be sent here the Father or the simple and self-existing Divine Substance is to be considered as a Person by it self and acting apart from the Son who is said to be sent for in the first place the Divine Substance which is Vbiquitary and Omnipresent cannot be said with respect unto it self either to send or to be sent for whatsoever is Omnipresent is at the same time considered as immoveable and quiescent there being no place into which it is possible for it to remove and this perhaps may not improbably be lookt upon as one eternal cause of the blessedness and Tranquillity of the Divine Nature that by reason of its Omnipresence it is always perfectly at rest within it self it is impassible from it self and from any thing without it it being impossible it should yield or give place to
understanding will not reach as it will not certainly extend to the utmost possibility of Ideas at one and the same time which implies infinite knowledge or knowledge in its utmost Latitude and Perfection an attribute belonging to the Divine Substance and incommmunicable with any other there this Divine Substance is again considered in this fifth particular as a Person acting distinctly by it self Sixthly and lastly in the actuation of those Divine Ideas or in the bringing them out of a state of notion into a state of reality and extra-notional Existence or in the Creation of the material and intellectual World together with the several modifications and motions of the one the several orders and degrees of the other in this also the Father is to be considered as acting by himself the Power of Creation or the producing realities out of a state of non-existence out of a state of possibility into a state of being and from a state of notion into a state of impenetrability tangibility or life being only competible to God himself and belonging only to infinite Power as the Ideas themselves which were the principles and patterns according to which the realities were made could not in their full extent and comprehension and at one and the same time be present to any wisdom or understandng but that which was infinite and by consequence Divine though I deny not but that the Son that is the human nature in conjunction with the divine for of it self it could not do it may in some sense be said to have made the World as the Scripture asserts him to have done and in what sense that is shall be now very suddenly and very clearly declared For as there are some operations of the divine nature to be met with wherein the Father or the simple divine substance acts as a distinct Person by it self without the concurrence of the human nature so there are others wherein the divine and human nature act joyntly and as it were confederately together and are considered as one common person endued with one common life understanding and will and they are these First in the business of Creation which though it hath been already appropriated as an incommunicable act to the simple divine substance yet we find notwithstanding in Scripture that the Creation of the World is attributed to the Son likewise that is to the second person of the blessed Trinity or to the human nature vitally and personally united to the divine as well as to God the Father or to the simple divine substance it self the reasons of which if I am not mistaken are principally if not only these that follow First that all things being produced out of nothing by the divine power or by a bare act of the divine will and the human nature being vitally and personally united to the divine so as to be partaker of the life of God and to be wholly determined and acted by his will the will of the human nature being as it were included absorpt and swallowed up in the divine and the one being perfectly determined and acted by the other whatsoever effect follows any determination or motion of the divine will may very properly be said to be the effect also of the human in conjunction with it and acting as one common person with one indivisible and common determination it being no more possible to separate the one will from the other than it is to dissolve the union of the two natures or to divide any emanative and immediate effect from its immediate and emanative cause and it is in a manner the same case as in the Line Where if you consider A as the first mover and B and C as quiescent yet B being first moved by the motion of A the motion of C is rightly affirmed to be owing to them both acting in common and in conjunction together notwithstanding that the original power of moving be wholly to be ascribed to and to be derived from A whose Creature B as to its motion is as C in the same respect may be said to be the common creature of them both Secondly the human nature of Christ tho' personally and vitally united to the divine yet being as it hath been said already but a finite nature and though there were in it a perfect Conjunction and Symphony of will in all things to the divine will and understanding so far as the sphere of its capacity would reach yet that capacity being finite and imperfect it wanted some external helps to give it the more full and comprehensive notion of the divine nature and by consequence the more large and plentiful enjoyment of it for which reason it was that from all Eternity there was Created a Sub-eternal and Aethereal matter which being united to and animated by the ubiquitary and original life which is called God the Father constituted the third Person of the Blessed Trinity which is called the Holy Ghost Now God being infinitely perfect and happy in himself it could not be that this Aethereal matter was produced by him for the more full and perfect enjoyment of himself for there could be nothing in any Creature especially an inanimate one as this subtle matter without the conjunction and animation of the divine life must be which was not before hand eminently and transcendently to be found in himself who is considered as its emanative and its only cause neither is it reasonable to conceive though it proceeded from all eternity from the Divine Substance by way of emanation that it was created out of no end or design or that no use was made of it from all eternity till in the fulness of time the aspectable Vniverse was Created wherefore it is but reasonable in this case to suppose that this subtle matter was employed partly in forming the Vehicles of the Caelestial Hierarchy the Angels and immortal Spirits the Morning Stars and Sons of God that sung together and shouted for joy when the first corner stone of the World was laid and consequently did exist before it And that they were really cloathed with such Aetherial Vehicles or Caelestial Bodies as we shall be our selves after the Resurrection if there be any sense in the 15th Chapter of the first to the Corinthians and our Saviour himself assures us that in the future state we shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Angels or equal to the Angels that are in Heaven seems to me plainly to be asserted by the Psalmist in these words Psal 104. 4. Who maketh his Angels Spirits his Ministers a flaming Fire not to repeat here what I have * Apology for the mid way Sermon of the Omnipresence elsewhere said concerning the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Angel in the new Testament and that they had also a pre-existence before the Foundation of the World were laid seems not obscurely to be imployed by the Psalmist in that immediately
after as if the next thing to the Creation of Angels were that of the sensible and acceptable world he subjoyns who laid the Foundations of the earth that it should not be removed for ever But this is not all it was further necessary that this subtle matter should be Created for it neither is or can be by it self any more then a Creature and that from all Eternity by an emanative way that the Son or the second Person of the Blessed Trinity or the human nature of Christ vitally and personally united to the Divine of God the Father might have from all Eternity the more large and comprehensive notion of that infinitely perfect nature to which it was thus vitally and personally united and by consequence might be the more closely united and enjoy the more perfect Friendship and Communion with it for it is but reasonable to suppose that in this subtle matter not only the Vehicles of Angelick Forms and Spirits but also the sensible Ideas and Patterns of this lower World were originally drawn and in this sense the Heavens that is the emanative subtle matter in which those Archetypal Ideas were framed may be said to have declared the Glory of God in another and an antecedent notion to that in which the Psalmist understood those words by representing the Original Patterns of the World that was designed to be Created in the fulness of time to the Human nature of Christ and to those Angels and separated Spirits which were in time produced before the Foundations of the World which taught them more fully and perfectly to understand and celebrate the Power and Wisdom of God then without such outward helps any finite or created Being was capable of doing and this was no more then Seneca hath represented concerning God himself that he made use from all Eternity of a certain subtle matter in which the first Patterns and Archetypal examples of all things whatsoever were drawn Miremur saith he in his 58th Epistle See Apol. for middle way A. p. 283 to 289 in sublimi volitantes rerum omnium formas Deumque inter illa versantem ac providentem quemadmodum quae immortalia sacere non potuit quia materia prohibibat defendat a morte ac ratione vitium corporis vincat in which passage though it be manifest that he supposed God to be one Supreme Vbiquitary and Immaterial Nature which is his genuine and true notion and so must not be supposed in this particular to adhere strictly to the Stoical Principles which did not acknowledge any thing but matter in the world and though that supreme ubiquitary and immaterial Nature to help him to form and model his Ideas may not perhaps have any need of any such subtle and subeternal matter although it be somewhat difficult to conceive how material Ideas can be represented or conveyed otherwise then by material objects or by the help of the materia Ideata yet with respect to the human nature of Christ it was perhaps a matter of absolute necessity that such a subtle matter should from all Eternity be created wherein the first Patterns and Exemplars of things should be drawn to fill it with the more large and comprehensive notion of the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God which was a natural means of the most close and intimate Communion with him and this is a second sense in which the Son may be said no have Created the World because it was Created as it were on purpose for him that part of it I mean which makes up the subtle matter of the Vniverse which is infinitely the most considerable proportion of it But thirdly the Son may be said to have Created the World in this sense also not that the Power or Wisdom of the Human Nature could extend so far as to the Creation of the World but only that God the Father that is the original and radical divine substance did as it were take the advice and Council of the human nature in it that is he created such a World as should have a beauty congruity in it to the Human Nature because that Nature which in its abstracted separate Estate is much the same with the Angelic was to be the Principal Inhabitant of the Vniverse and therefore beauty or congruity being nothing else but a certain satisfaction complacency and delight which a certain object strikes upon a certain nature such a World was to be Created as was most naturally suited to please its best Inhabitant with its outward appearance as well as to afford it matter of Contemplation so that as all the Creatures were at first brought to Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever he called them that was the Name thereof so was the whole Creation presented to the Human Nature of Christ as it were for his approbation and to him perhaps it was especially to be applied what we find written at the end of every days work in the History of the Creation that God that is the human nature of Christ in conjunction with the divine saw that it was good that is it had a goodness of congruity to the Human part and I take upon me to affirm that no sense can be put upon this place which gives so intelligible an account of the goodness mentioned in the Text as this which I have mentioned seems to do so also St. John tells us That by him all things were made and without him was not any thing made that was made all things were made by him in the sense already explained because of the intimate union of the two Natures by which it comes to pass that the effects and operations of the one are alike attributed and ascribed to the other and without him not any thing was made that was made that is without his consent concurrence and approbation to whom the World that was to be made was to be so fitted that it was to have in it a certain congruity and harmony with his Nature and to strike a certain Sympathy and complacency upon it and in this sense it is that he is perhaps called by the Prophet Isaiah the Councellor as well as the Mighty God God having in this great work of the Creation consulted principally the happiness of his Creature Man and ordered matters after such a manner as should be most suitable most delightful most congruous and most useful to the human nature But secondly a second instance in which the divine and human nature may be considered as acting as one commen Person is the great affair of our Redemption for the divine nature of it self was impassible and the human of it self could not satisfie for the sins of the World but the innocence of the human nature of Christ which was I take it for granted owing to the intimate presence and union of it with the Divine the exquisite and inconceiveable painfulness of that death which our blessed Lord suffered upon the Cross for our sakes resulting
Trinity as an impossible and contradictious thing and they would believe nothing of which they could not give some intelligible Account a great Fault I confess when we speak of a Divine that is a confessedly infinite and incomprehensible Subject but not so great as theirs who make new difficulties to avoid the old and to escape one Mystery run into another and that so strangely freakish and so palpably ridiculous that it is a great dishonour and disparagement to the Scriptures to be thought to have imposed such whimsies upon the World for Articles of Faith and the most Sacred Mysteries of Religion For the Doctrine of Sabellianism was no other than this they are the Words of Your Neighbour Dr. Cudworth in his Intellectual System p. 605. That there was but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self-same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Fathers begetting the Son was nothing but one Name or Notion or Mode of the Deity 's begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been incarnated and to have suffered Death for us upon the Cross That it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was incarnate and suffered or else the whole of the Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only It would have been very well si sic omnia dixisset although in this very Citation there be sufficient matter for a very just Reprehension For by the Dr's Favour the Sabellian Doctrine is by no means a Consequence of this Proposition That there is but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost so far as the Divinity of all the Three Persons is concerned for the divine Nature in them all is to use his own way of Expression singularly individually numerically the same as I shall now immediately shew and yet for all that the Sabellian Doctrine still continues to be as false and as absurd as ever But so extremely cautious was the Orthodox Doctor of running into the Heresie of Sabellius That he not only denys the Three Persons of the Trinity to have One singular existent Essence but to avoid an Assertion which to him seems to be so full of absurdity and the more effectually to baffle Atheism which says there is no God he tells us if we will believe him That there are Three They are his own Words let him speak for himself pag. 604. It is evident from hence that these reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence they supposing them to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be one God than three individual Men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all one Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decryed for Tritheistic so in the room thereof started there up that other of Persons Numerically the same or having all one and the same singular existent Essence a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only In which words it is as plain as Words can express it that he represents the Orthodox Fathers asserting the Belief of Three Gods as much as Three Men are Three Men numerically distinct though having a specifical Identity with one another and this I think is to assert Three Gods if the Father Son and Holy Ghost be as distinct from one another as Paul and Apollos and Cephas for no man doubts but they were three several and distinct Men nay he owns the thing to save us the trouble and the charge of proving it For in the Running-Title of that very Page he calls this Trinity of these reputed Orthodox Fathers a Tritheistic Trinity and afterwards when he condemns the Doctrine of a singular existent Essence of Novelty and by consequence disallows and disapproves it as he had done deservedly the Sabellian Doctrine before we must either conclude him to be himself a Tritheistic a Sect for which I believe he may have a kindness because he loves hard Words or something else without either stick or trick which I will not name because his Book pretends to be written against it Neither was he barely content to have insinuated thus much under the Covert of the reputed Orthodox Fathers but p. 605. He is at it again being wonderful zealous to expose and baffle this Lateran Popish Doctrine of a singular existent Essence The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he as was before insinuated by Petavius was never used by Greek Writers otherwise then to signifie the agreement of things numerically different from one another in some common nature or universal essence or their having a generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any Name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under human Conception viz. several things having one and the same singular Essence So that it is plain according to him having already refuted and blasted the Sabellian Doctrine that if there be indeed a Trinity of Divine Persons it consists of Three several Natures numerically different although they have a specifical sameness or Identity with one another that is in plain English there are Three Gods let Nature and the Scripture say what they please for they do both of them assure us there is but One but in regard he hath no where declared for any Trinity at all as it is his Custom to lye close in a difficult Point only hath made it his business in a multitude of Words to expose the Trinity of the reputed Orthodox Fathers therefore the most that Charity it self can allow him if it were to step forth and speak his most favourable Character to the World is That he is an Arian a Socinian or a Deist and therefore he will oblige us very much in the close of the next Volume which is expected to come out upon the last day of the last Platonic Term for the Intellectual Vniverse like the mundus aspectabilis is to consist of Two Globes of which the Celestial that is the biggest is yet to come among which of all these reputed Orthodox Divines he hath enroll'd and listed himself Nay not yet satisfyed with having a Man would think sufficiently betray'd the most sublime and sacred Mystery of the Christian Faith he confirms and inculcates the same thing by new Arguments and fresh Examples in what he saith afterwards p. 611. of the Orthodox Fathers condemning and disallowing the use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
it any more but though he cannot find the Trinity yet it is not to be questioned but the Trinity will find him if he do not seriously repent and publickly recant the horrid Indignities which he hath cast upon it The notion of three Supreme and Independent Beings is therefore an Absurd and Foolish Notion not only because it makes three Gods to no purpose there being nothing in any one which is not in the other but also because it is an impossible one into the bargain For to the notion of this Supreme and Independent Being the attribute of Omnipresence does of necessity belong wherefore in the case of three Gods that is three Supreme and Independent Beings Numerically distinct although specially the same there must also be three Vbiquitary or Omnipresent Natures at the same time so that they must of necessity imbibe and penetrate each other by such a kind of knack as the Doctour out of the Greek Fathers is pleased to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circuminsession and so being supposed before hand to be Specifically the same it is now the same thing by reason of this mutual penetration and total Inbibition of each others substance as if they were the same Numerically too and in this appears the Non-sense of Polytheism that is the worship of many such Supreme and Independent substances if indeed there were ever any to be found that have been so stupid to be guilty of it that it supposes more Omnipresent Immaterial Natures then one which if it be once granted to be a possible thing there is no reason why it may not also be possible that there may be as many Independents in Heaven as there are upon Earth and all of them having the same Understanding Will and all other Attributes so many times Numerically repeated that there may be a Ballance of Power an Harmony of Sentiments and a Concurrence of Will to hinder them from falling out or squabling among themselves so as at this rate not only Varro's Catalogue would be encreas'd and swell'd to a proportion more prodigious then that ever was esteemed but even Conception and Arithmetick would fail to find a thought or a number to express them The Doctour was not insensible how very invidious it must needs appear to charge the Orthodox Fathers and more especially Athanasius himself with asserting Three Gods Numerically distinct and therefore though he was resolved to lay it home upon them partly to expose that Doctrine as it deserves and partly to show the absurdity of a singular existent Essence Numerically the same in three several Persons which he would have us believe to have been so great that the Fathers ran into Polytheism to avoid it and by both of these means to open a fair passage for Arianism to enter in and take possession of the minds of his Readers yet he draws off and on by very Artificial Movements for thus he tells us after a Multitude of Citations as his manner is p. 606. From all which it is unquestionably evident that Athanasius did not by the word Homoousios understand that which hath the same Singular and Numerical Essence with another but the same common generical or specifical only and consequently that he conceived the Son to be co-essential or consubstantial with the Father after that manner that is in plain English he conceived the Father and the Son to be two several and distinct Gods and again p. 612. which is falsly marked 596 he hath these words And now upon all these considerations our Platonic Christian would conclude that the Orthodox Trinity of the Antient Christian Church did herein agree with the genuinely Platonic Trinity that it was not Monoousian one sole singular Essence under three Notions Conceptions or Modes only but three Hypostases or Persons as likewise the right Platonic Trinity does agree with the Antient Orthodox Christians in this that it is not Heteroousian but Homoousian Coessential or Consubstantial none of their three Hypostases being Creatures or particular Beings made in time but all of them Unconceived Eternal and Infinite And this I think again is to represent the Orthodox Trinity as consisting of three several Deities or Divine Substances Numerically distinct but specifically the same which is the true Interpretation of all those cramp words that they are Homoousian that is specifically Co-essential and Consubstantial not Monoousian nor Tautoousian that is Numerically the same nor Heteroousian that is specifically or generically different from each other and this I take it is to expose the Orthodox Trinity but he goes on and I must follow him Notwithstanding all which saith he it must be granted that though this Homoousiotes or Co-essentiallity of the three Persons in the Trinity does imply them to be all God yet does it not follow from thence of necessity that they are therefore one God No by no means but it follows unavoidably that they are three Gods and that is it which the Doctor would intimate when he tells us that it does not follow from thence of necessity that they are one God implying that the contrary does manifestly follow and so good Night to the Trinity a Doctrine which ran the reputed Orthodox Fathers by which it is implyed that they were not really so into so many absurdities and so foul mistakes But this is not all What then saith he shall we conclude that Athanasius himself also entertained that opinion before mentioned and exploded of the three Persons in the Trinity being but three Individuals under the same species as Peter and Paul and Timothy and having no other natural Unity or Identity then Specifical only Indeed some have confidently fastned this upon Athanasius because in those Dialogues of the Trinity published amongst his works and there Intituled to him the same is grosly owned and in defence thereof this absurd Paradox maintained that Peter Paul and Timothy though they be three Hypostases yet are not to be accounted three Men but only then when they Dissent from one another or disagree in Will or Opinion But it is certain from several passages in those Dialogues themselves that they could not be written by Athanasius and there hath been also another Father found for them to wit Maximus the Martyr And this is wonderful pleasant Indeed some have confidently fastened this upon Athanasius as if the bashful Doctour whose Chin must be acknowledged to be very Modest and Maidenly whatever his Forehead may be had not done exactly the same for he makes Athanasius himself expresly to assert a Specifical Vnity of the Three Persons and what closer Vnity there is unless it be the Numerical I do not understand and I challenge him to explain unless it be the Emperichoretic or Circuminsessive a couple of very fine words to signifie just nothing at all for it is every whit as hard to understand at this rate how there shall be Three Persons Specifically as how they shall be Numerically the same nay they will be Numerically the