Divinity which is absolutely and originally in the Father Well then Here is One Divine Person viz. the Eternal Father who is absolutely and originally God and Two more the Son and Holy Ghost who are each of them in his own Person true and perfect God by having all the Divine Perfections But are not these Three then Three Gods the Unbegotten God who is originally and absolutely God the Begotten God and the Proceeding God No it is the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers that the Trinity is but One Divinity and One God una Summa res One Supreme Being as St. Austin taught and from him Peter Lombard and was confirmed by the Council of Lateran in the Condemnation of Abbot Ioachim For Father Son and Holy Ghost though they are Three true and proper Persons are but One Individual Nature for it is Essential to the Eternal Mind to have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit and the Eternal Word and Spirit live and subsist in the Mind and though living subsisting Persons yet are as individually One with the Mind as a Created Mind its Word and Spirit are One. Whatever is Essential to Nature is in the Individual Unity of it and that is but One Individual Nature which has nothing but what is Essential to it and therefore if as I have already observed and as the Catholick Faith teaches the Son and Spirit the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are Essential Processions of Eternal Original Mind and essentially indivisibly and inseparably in it Father Son and Holy Ghost are as essentially and inseparably One Individual Divinity as any One Nature is One with it self But is not this a kind of Sabellian Composition of a God A whole Divinity made up of Three partial and incomplete Divinities Which St. Austin calls a Triformis Deus By no means What is compounded is made up of Parts which make a compound Nature but perfect Hypostases however united can make no Composition However you unite Iames and Iohn you can never make a compound Man of them because each of them have a perfect Human Nature and as Damascen observes we do not say That the Nature or Species is made up of the Hypostases but is in the Hypostases So that each Divine Person being a complete and perfect Hypostasis having the whole Divine Nature in himself as being True and Perfect God their Union in the same Individual Nature though it makes them One Essential Divinity yet it cannot make a Compound God for however their Persons are united the Divinity or Divine Nature is not compounded each of them being True and Perfect God and not One God by Composition but by an Individual Unity of Nature in Three For every Divine Person is not God in the same sense that every Human Person is a Man as having an Absolute Individual Nature of his own for in this sense the Father only is God as being Absolute Original Divinity an Eternal Self-originated Mind and Three such Persons must be acknowledged to be Three Gods but as I have been forced often to repeat it the Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons as they are Eternal Living Subsisting Processions in the Divine Nature which proves them to have the very same Divinity and to be but One Individual Divinity but not One Compound God For One Individual Nature in Three though distinguisht into Distinct Subsisting Persons makes such a natural inseparable Unity of Will Energy and Power that they are as perfectly One Almighty Agent as every single Person is One Agent as I have shewn above It is thought by some a manifest Contradiction to say as the Athanasian Creed teaches us The Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God But whoever carefully considers what I have now said must own that this is the only true and proper way of speaking in this Mystery If there be but One Absolute Divinity there can be but One God for the Divine Processions in the Unity and Identity of the same Individual Nature cannot multiply the Divinity nor multiply the Name and Title of God for the Name God does not originally absolutely and immediately belong to them but only relatively The proper immediate Character of the Second Person in the Trinity is not God but the Son of God and the Word of God and so the Third is the Spirit of God And though we must necessarily own that the Son of God and the Spirit of God are each of them True and Perfect God equal in all Divine Perfections to the Father as being all the same that the Father is excepting his being a Father yet they are not Three Gods for this is not their immediate Original Character but there is One God the Father his Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit This is what I have above observed from Tertullian That there is One God with his Oeconomy that is his Son and Spirit and that Christ is called God when he is spoken of by himself but when he is named together with the Father he must have his own proper Title which is the Son of God and the Reason is the same as to the Holy Spirit by which Rule we can never say That Father Son and Holy Ghost though each of them be God are Three Gods but there are Three God the Father his Son and Holy Spirit The Father God of himself the Son and Spirit Eternal Processions and Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity and Identity of the Father's Godhead They have all the same Divinity their Glory equal their Majesty coeternal but their different manner of having it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguishes their Names and Characters The Father is God absolutely God an Unbegotten Self-originated Being so God that there is no other God besides him The Son is not absolutely God but the Son of God and when he is called God in Scripture it is in no other sense but as the Son of God for the Son of God must be God the Son Nor is the Holy Spirit absolutely God but the Spirit of God which is all we mean when we call him God for the Spirit of God must be God the Holy Ghost This is the Catholick Faith and let any Man try if he can find Three Gods in it For when we number Father Son and Holy Ghost we must not number them by the common Name of Nature which is One Undivided Divinity in them all but by their Relative Names and Characters which do not only distinguish their Persons but signify their Unity Order and Relations in the same Nature We must not call them Three Gods because God is not the original Name of the Son or Spirit and therefore they are not Three Gods but there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead The One God the Father the Son of God and the Spirit of God so that there is but One God in the Christian Faith if the Son of God be
Peter Iames and Iohn is the very same and therefore there is a specifick Sameness and Unity of Nature between them The Divine Nature in Father Son and Holy Ghost is the same not merely in Notion and Idea but Substantially the same and therefore all the names of a Specifick Sameness and Unity do in a more perfect and excellent manner belong to the Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature as Subsisting Perfectly Indivisibly and yet Distinctly in Father Son and Holy Ghost And when we speak of the Sameness of the Divine Nature as subsisting distinctly in Three Divine Persons we have no other words to express it by but such as signify a Specifick Unity and we must use such words as we have and qualifie their sense as well as we can As for instance Those words whereby we signify a common specifick Nature which is One and the Same in all the Individuals of the same Species are the best we have to express the Unity of the Divine Nature as common to Three Persons and thus the Catholick Fathers use them without scruple and speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature and of its being common to all the Three Divine Persons in the same Words and Phrases as they use concâ—rning a common specifick Nature Which leads some into a great mistake as if they meant no more by it but a specifick Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature that Father Son and Holy Ghost have one Substance no otherwise than as Peter Iames and Iohn have one and the same Humane Nature For the Divine Nature is not One merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in mere Notion and Idea but actually indivisibly inseparably One nor is it a common Nature merely as it has a common Name and Definition but by an actual Inexistence in Three For the same reason it is very difficult what Three to call Father Son and Holy Ghost so as to avoid the Heresies of both Extreams for there is no Example of such Three in Nature They are certainly Three for the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost nor the Son the Father or the Holy Ghost and each of the Three is perfect God and therefore an Infinite Mind an Infinite Spirit and the most Perfect Essence and Substance And that Substance which is the Person of the Son is not that Substance which is the Person of the Father no more than the Person of the Son is the Person of the Father or an unbegotten is a begotten Nature and Substance and therefore in opposition to Sabellius they asserted Three Substantial Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostases or Personal Substances as Hypostasis signifies tria in substantia tres substantias tres res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet at the same time did assert That there is but One Divine Nature and Substance which indivisibly and inseparably though distinctly subsists in all Three For the understanding of which we must observe That as the Divine Nature which is common to Three is not a mere Species but is really and actually One and the same in all so these Three Divine Persons which have one and the same common Nature are not in a strict and proper notion Individuals of the same common Nature Though we have no Names for these Three but such as signify Individuals as Persons Hypostases Subsistences c. and there being no Created Person Hypostasis or Subsistence but what is an Individual To shew you the difference with respect to the notion of an Individual between the Three Divine Persons and three individual Humane Persons I observe That every Humane Person is such an Individual as has a particular Humane Nature of his own which is not the particular Nature of any other Person the notion and definition of Humane Nature is the same in all men but the same Numerical Humane Nature does not subsist in all but every particular individual man has one particular individual Humane Nature appropriated to himself that is which is his particular Person and as many particular Persons as there are so many particular Humane Natures and particular men there are But now the Divine Persons are not Three such Individuals as these because they have not three individual Divine Natures but the same One Divine Nature common to them all originally in the Father and communicated whole and entire to the Son by an Eternal Generation and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit by an Eternal Procession How impossible soever it is for our finite Understandings to comprehend these Mysteries of the eternal Generation and Procession it is not so hard to conceive the difference between Three Persons who have One individual Nature common to them all but subsisting so distinctly in each of them as to make them Three distinct Persons and Three Persons who have Three Individual Natures of the same Kind and Species As for Instance Three Human Persons which have Three individual Human Natures are by the confession of all Mankind Three Men But could we conceive One individual Human Nature which originally constitutes but One Person to Communicate it self Whole and Entire without Division or Separation to Two other Persons we must acknowledge Three Human Persons each of which Persons is distinctly and by himself True and Perfect Man but not Three Men for Man is a name of Nature and if Persons can be multiplied without multiplying the Nature as we at present suppose there must be Three Human Persons in One individual Human Nature that is Three Persons and One Man but not Three Men no more than Three Human Natures Thus it is with respect to the Divine Nature Were there Three individual Divine Natures Self-originated and Independent on each other though perfectly the same in their Notion and Definition Three such Persons would be as Perfectly Three Gods as Three Human Persons that have Three individual Human Natures are Three Men. But whereas the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church has always believed there is but One Infinite Self-originated Divine Nature Originally in the Father and by Communication in the Son and Holy Spirit these Three Divine Persons are each of them True and Perfect God but not Three Gods because they have not Three Individual Divine Natures but One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly but Whole and Perfect in them all This I think may give us some Notion of One Numerical Common Nature which is no Species and of Persons which are no Individuals St. Austin shews particularly how improper it is to call the One Divine Essence a Genus and the Three Divine Persons Species or to call the Divine Essence a Species and the Divine Persons Individuals for in both these cases we must multiply the name of Essence with the Species and Individuals as we not only say three Horses but three Animals and as Abraham Isaac and Iacob are three Individuals so they are three Men in consequence of which we must
and Son to the Eternal Spirit and all Three are Infinite in Wisdom Power and Goodness and all other Divine Perfections This is but One Divinity One Godhead for there is not a Second and Third Divinity in the Son and in the Holy Spirit but the One Divinity of the Father But yet we must confess that here is Number Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and how can that Divinity which is perfectly and distinctly in Three be One Individual Nature One Numerically One as Human Nature in every particular Man is One Now this must be resolved into the second Notion of Essential for Essential Productions for all Essential Productions in the Unity of Nature though they may be distinguished and numbred among themselves are but One Individual Nature It will be in vain to seek for an Example of this in Created Nature and I believe the reason of it will be evident without it An Eternal Self-originated Mind is True and Perfect God the First Supreme Cause of all things and has all the Perfections of the Divinity wholly in it self is the One and only True God But if it be essential to an Eternal Mind to have an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit by an Eternal Generation and Procession then this Eternal Word and Spirit are essential to an Eternal Mind not as Essential Perfections or Essential Parts but as Essential Productions or Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature Thus the Scripture represents this Mystery That there is One God who has an Eternal Word and an Eternal Spirit and the Catholick Fathers as I have already observed insist on this as a natural Demonstration of a Trinity That the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit Now if the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are essential to the Eternal Mind it is certain that Father Son and Holy Ghost the Eternal Mind its Word and Spirit are but One Individual Divinity every thing that is essential is included in the Notion of an Individual Nature for that is not a Compleat and Perfect Nature nor an adequate notion of Nature that wants any thing that is essential Now though we may have a general Notion and Idea of a God That he is an Absolutely Perfect Being which Includes all the Divine Attributes and Perfections without knowing any thing of the Son or Holy Ghost yet if we consider this Absolutely Perfect Being as Eternal Self-originated Mind with its Eternal Word and Spirit as essential Productions or Processions we can consider them no otherwise but as One Individual Divinity this Eternal Word and Spirit being essential Processions of the Eternal Mind which can never be separated from it For such essential Processions are not only coeval and consubstantial with the Nature from whence they proceed as the Sun its Light and Heat by which Argument the Catholick Fathers proved the Coeternity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Eternal Father but whatever distinction there is between them they are One Individual Nature if all that be One Individual Nature which is essential to such a Being and such all essential Processions are as well as essential Perfections These are two very different Questions and of a very different consideration What God is and Who this God is In an answer to the first we form the Idea and Notion of all Divine Perfections or of an absolutely Perfect Being which is the true notion of the Divinity and whoever has all these Divine Perfections is True and Perfect God and this is our natural notion of God as that signifies the Divinity which gives no notice of any distinction in the Divinity for there can be no diversity in Absolute Perfections and therefore no distinction or number according to the Philosophy of the Fathers But when we consider who God is or what is the Subject of all these Divine Perfections we can form no other Idea of it but an Eternal Infinite Self originated Mind this the Wisest Philosophers as well as Christians are agreed in That God is an Infinite Mind and this rightly explained may teach us some distinction in the Divinity for all Men must grant what they feel in themselves that every Mind has its Word and Spirit and cannot be conceived without them and therefore the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal word and Spirit too and the reason why this did not lead all Mankind into the natural belief of a Trinity of Persons Mind Word and Spirit in the Unity of the Godhead was plainly this Because they found that their own Word and Spirit were not permanent subsisting Persons but were the perishing Creatures of the Mind which were no sooner produced but died and vanished as our Thoughts do and thus they conceived it was with the Divine Mind which is one kind of Sabellianism as I observed above But yet the Catholick Fathers thought this natural belief That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divinity or Divine Mind is not without its Word a very proper Medium to prove a real subsisting Word in the Divinity for an Infinite Perfect Mind which is all Life Being Substance if it begets its own Word as every Mind does must beget a Living Substantial Subsisting Word the perfect Image and Character of its own Life and Infinite Being However thus much I think we must own That since every Mind must have its Word and Spirit in the Individual Unity of its own Nature and the Holy Scripture assures us that God who is the most perfect Mind has his Word and Spirit and that this Divine Word and Spirit is an Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Spirit this is a very good foundation for the belief of a Real Trinity both from Reason and Scripture The natural Notion and Idea of a Mind teaches us this distinction in the Divinity and Natural Reason strongly infers from the perfect Productions of an infinitely perfect Mind that the Divine Word and Spirit must be an Eternal Living Infinite Word and Spirit and the Holy Scripture confirms all this And therefore Scripture and Reason are so far from contradicting each other in this Article that the Belief of the Trinity though it be ultimately resolved into the Authority of Revelation yet has Reason on its side as far as it can judge of such matters Which proves a considerable Authority when the obscure and imperfect Conjectures of Reason are explained and confirmed by Revelation For though the Notion of an absolutely perfect Being which is the Natural Idea of the Divinity teaches no such distinction yet the Idea of an Infinitely Perfect and Self-originated Mind which is as natural a Notion of God does Thus Damascen teaches us to distinguish between the Divinity and in what the Divinity is or to speak more accurately what is the Divinity and that which proceeds eternally from this First Cause that is the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit the first teaches us
that there is but One Divinity the second shews the distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature But then which is what I intended in all this this very distinction proves one individual Divinity because it is in the individual Unity of the same Numerical not Specifick Nature for all essential Processions as the Eternal Word and Spirit are which cannot so much as in Thought be separated from Original Mind must continue in the Unity of the same individual Nature This is what the Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One common Divinity which is individually One in Three perfect Hypostases Father Son and Holy Ghost The Divinity of the Father of Eternal Self-originated Mind is the common Divinity communicated to the Eternal Word and Spirit in the individual Unity of Nature 2. Now this will give us some Notion of the distinction of Nature and Persons in the Eternal Godhead I say Persons not Person which I take to be the fundamental Mistake which has obscured and perplex'd this Mystery Men have rack'd their Inventions to find out some distinction between Nature and Person in every single Person in the Godhead which it is certain these Fathers never thought of though their Attempt to distinguish between Nature and Person in every Man gave some occasion to this Mistake But I have already proved both from Fathers and Schoolmen That when they spoke distinctly of each particular Person they made Person and Nature the same That the Person of the Father is the Nature of the Father and the Person of the Son the Nature of the Son Nor indeed had they any occasion to distinguish between Nature and Person in each single Person which could do no service in this Mystery For the true reason and occasion for this distinction was to reconcile the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature with a Trinity of real Hypostases or Persons how One Nature can subsist in Three distinct Hypostases and continue One Individual Nature Which had been no difficulty at all were not each Divine Person by himself the Divine Nature But how the Divine Nature should subsist whole and perfect in Three distinct Persons and not be Three distinct Natures but One Nature and One Divinity not specifically but individually and numerically One This was the difficulty they were concerned to answer which the distinction between Nature and Person in each single Person could not answer For let us suppose such a distinction as this whatever it be if the Divine Nature subsist whole and perfect in each distinct Person the difficulty still remains how the Persons are distinct and the Nature individually One As to put the Case in Human Nature whatever distinction we allow between Nature and Person in every particular Man if we allow that every Man has Human Nature as distinctly in himself as he is a distinct Person the distinction between Nature and Person can never prove the Individual Numerical Unity of Human Nature in Three Men. The Question then is Not how Nature and Person is distinguish'd in each single Person much less how Three Persons in One singular Nature are distinguished from that singular Nature which unavoidably reduces a Trinity of Persons to an unintelligible Trinity of Modes but How the Three Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity which are Three in number and each of them the Divine Nature are distinguished from that One Individual Divinity which is in them all or rather which they all are Now what I have already said seems to me to give a very intelligible Notion of this viz. That the Divine Nature which is but One is the Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its Eternal Essential Processions or Productions which as I have already shewn are but One not Singular but Individual Nature and Individual Divinity But then this One Self-originated Divinity is most certainly an Infinite Eternal Self-originated Person if Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind be a Person and these Eternal Essential Processions are Persons also if an Eternal Living Subsisting Word be a Person and an Eternal Living Subsisting Spirit be a Person and then it is evident that there are Three Eternal Subsisting Persons in the Individual Unity of Nature These Divine Processions do not multiply nor divide the Divine Nature because they are essential to an Infinite Mind and are Processions ad intra in the perfect Identity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Individual Unity of Nature but they are distinct Persons as being Eternal Subsisting Living Intelligent Processions which is all that we mean by Persons in this Mystery with reference to the Eternal Word and Spirit For these Three Divine Persons have their different Characters and Order whereby they are distinguished from each other which the Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which they meant their different manner of subsisting in the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature that though they have all the same Divinity as that signifies all Divine Perfections yet they have it after a different manner that is as they constantly explain it Vnbegotten Begotten and Proceeding as the Athanasian Creed teaches us to believe The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding This is the only distinction which the Catholick Fathers allow between the Three Divine Persons and let us consider the nature of it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actual Existence and that which does actually exist and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify that there are Three that do actually exist but after a different manner That is That the Father is Unbegotten Self-originated Divinity is God of himself without any other cause of his Being and this Self-originated Unbegotten Divinity is the Person of the Father and in the highest and most absolute sense the One God The Son is Eternally begotten of his Father's Substance and lives and subsists in him and so the Holy Ghost Eternally proceeds from Father and Son That is There is One Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its two Eternal Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of the same Nature The Father's manner of subsistence is easily understood and secures to him the Prerogative of the One True God but we must shew this a little more plainly with reference to the Son and Holy Spirit each of which is by himself True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God The right understanding of which depends upon the true stating of their different manners of subsistence And here I need only refer to what I have already discoursed concerning the difference between an Absolute Nature and Relative Subsistencies in the same Nature An Absolute Nature is a whole Compleat Nature with all that essentially belongs to such a Nature as every perfect Man has all that belongs essentially to the Nature of Man
foundation of this Sameness and Consubstantiality of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father 184 To which they added That the Son receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father totus ex toto 186 Concerning this mysterious and ineffable Generation Whole of Whole 187 St. Austin teaches That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species nor the Divine Persons as Individuals 194 What Medium there is between the Vnity of Singularity and a specifick Vnity of Nature 195 The difference between Three Divine Persons and Three Individual Human Persons 199 SECT VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity 207 Petavius's attempt to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers taught the Singularity of the Divine Nature Ibid. His Notion of Singularity Considered 208 His Apology for the Fathers who as he says taught a specifick Vnity rejected 211 His Authorities for the Singularity of the Divine Nature Examined 213 By the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Fathers did not mean Singularity but such a Sameness as is between Three real subsisting Persons without the least Change and Variation 217 That the Fathers resolved the Vnity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature 221 Some Examples in Nature of the distinction betweeen alius and aliud 227 How the Fathers proved the Vnity of God in opposition to Polytheism from the Sameness and Identity of Nature 230 That these Arguments do not conclude against a Trinity of Divine Persons 232 Gregory Nyssen vindicated from Tritheism and his Answer to Ablabius Explained 236 The Philosophy of the Ancients about Numbers 243 The distinction between the Vnity of Number and the Vnity of Nature opposed to the Charge of Tritheism and a Confutation of a Sabellian Singularity 246 In what sense the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substanâ—e 248 SECT VII Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Vnity and Identity of the Divâ—ne Essence The general Account of this 254 That both the Fathers and Schools by a Divine Person understood the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 260 This proved from that Ambiguity with which the Fathers are charged in the use of these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis c. 261 That these Terms Essence c. are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity 264 And all those Terms which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the Notion of Substance and never thought Catholick in any other sense as Person Hypostasis Suppositum c. 265 That a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divine Nature proved from the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature which admits of no Composition as both Fathers and Schoolmen own 272 According to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools the Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another 273 Whether the Divine Essence either begets or is begotten and how the Fathers and Schools may be reconciled 274 SECT VIII Concerning the Divine Relations 281 The true Notion of Relative Substances or Subsisting Relations explained from the Doctrine of the Schools Ibid. These Divine Relations secure the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence 287 What is meant by an Absolute Substance and what by Relative Substance Ibid. This applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity 288 Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three Three Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature 289 This account the Fathers give of the Vnity of the Divine Essence 290 Concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they do not signify Personal Relative Substances but singular Absolute Substances 293 The Divine Relations prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three 298 These Divine Relations give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inseparable Vnion of the Divine Persons and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexistence in each other 300 This mutual inbeing can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance 305 And this gives an Account of the Vnity of Operation 308 Concerning the Mutual Consciousness of the Divine Persons 313 The Doctrine of Relations necessary to give us a sensible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity 326 SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity 334 The Faith and the Philosophy of the Ancients of a different Consideration Ibid. All the Heresies relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation attributed to this one mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same 336 This by some charg'd upon Aristotle's Notion of a first Substance Ibid. The Distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures considered 338 Aristotle's first Substance and what the Fathers call Hypostasis is in Creatures the same thing 339 What the Fathers mean by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Hypostasis 340 No real difference between Aristotle and the Fathers in this Matter Ibid. The Fathers by a Common Nature did not mean One Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals 341 For what reason they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular singular Nature 343 Hypostasis is Nature with its peculiar Accidents subsisting by it self that these Accidents and Personal Properties do not make but only distinguish Persons 345 The Hypostasis or Person is the common Nature subsisting by it self This proved from the Humanity of our Saviour 346 How improper all these Terms are to explain the Trinity in Vnity 350 How the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery 352 The Common Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father common to the Son and Spirit by a perfect Communication whole of whole 354 The true Notion of One Individual Nature Ibid. Essential Internal Productions are in the Individual Vnity of Nature 356 The Distinction between Nature and Persons for that is the true State of the Question not how Nature and Person is distinguished in each Single Divine Person but how One Individual Nature is distinguished from Three Persons in the Individual Vnity of Nature 360 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 362 This applied at large for the Explication and Vindication of several Catholick Forms of Speech concerning the Trinity in Vnity 365 c. The Conclusion with a short Application to the Socinians 385 ERRATA PAge 6. l. 31. d. all p. 9. marg r. quae p. 15. l. 3. r. enow p 86. l. 8 9. r expressions p. 180. l.
often enough already to the satisfaction of all sober Enquirers who pay a just Veneration to Scripture and shall be done again when a fair occasion offers But the Question under Debate now is Whether we cannot explain and defend the Doctrine of the Trinity without the use of Ecclesiastical or Scholastick Terms and whether the Disputes of Divines about the Use and Signification of such Terms proves any Dâ—sagreement in the Faith when they all consent to the Scripture Explications of it The great Dispute is about the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead and by what Terms to express this Wonderful Distinction and Wonderful Vnion as some of the Fathers call it All sincere Trinitarians do agree That God is Vnus Trinus One and Three but we having nothing in Nature like this we know not by what Names to call it Those who have most critically examined the force of words find them all upon some account or other defective or improper for this purpose That St. Austin well said That in these Sublime Mysteries we can no more express what we conceive of them in Words than we can conceive of them as they are When we profess to believe that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead the next question is What Three they are That is By what common Name to call them which may be multiplied with them or spoken of them in the Plural Number which St. Austin thinks not easily found The Greeks called them Three Hypostases which signifies Three Individual Substances This seemed hard to the Latins who acknowledged but One Substance in the Godhead and therefore they called them Three Persons though this did not satisfy St. Austin who looked upon Person as an Absolute not a Relative Term and therefore the Plural Predications would not agree with his Rule quae ad se dicuntur that what is predicated absolutely must be predicated only in the Singular Number And in truth if this be a good Rule it is a demonstration that there can be no common Name for these Three for whatever is a common Name for them all must be absolutely predicated of each of them And therefore St. Austin could give no other reason why we say Three Persons and not Three Essences or Three Gods but only this That since we acknowledge there are Three it is fitting to agree upon some common Name to denote the Trinity by and Ecclesiastical Use had given this Signification to the word Person But then besides this the great Dispute is What is meant by a Person when applied to the Three in the Blessed Trinity Some adhere to the old approved Definition of a Person That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature which is the very definition of the Greek Hypostasis as Boetius owns Others are afraid of this for if every Person be an Individual Substance and there are Three Persons they know not how to avoid the Consequence That then there are Three Individual Substances in the Trinity And consequently since we can have no other Notion of the Divine Substance but Infinite Mind and Spirit there must be Three Infinite Minds and Spirits in the Godhead which they think infers Three Gods And therefore they will not allow a Person to be a Substance at least not an Individual Substance but a Mode or at most a Mode of Subsistence or Relation or Property or a Person in the Tragedian or Comedian sense of a Person as one represents and personates another or to signify an Office or Magistracy and so one man may be as many several Persons as he has Offices I can't answer for all these different significations of the word Person as applied to this Sacred Mystery especially as they are used by some Modern Writers for I believe there is no such material difference between the Fathers and the Schools as some men imagine of which more hereafter But as to my present purpose I must profess I can see no necessity why we must find out a Common Name for the Three in the Blessed Trinity when the Scripture has given us no Common Name for them much less why we should dispute eternally about the propriety and use of such words to hazard the Catholick Faith at least the Honour and Reputation of it together with the Peace of the Church If I am asked not only Who but What the Three in the Ever-blessed Trinity are I know no better Answer to make than what the Scripture has taught me That they are God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost which signifies all that can be express'd by any Artificial and Unscriptural words is an Answer liable to no Exceptions or Misrepresentations and in which all must agree who believe a Trinity and it shames and silences all those Disputes which are often occasioned by other words though never so wisely and reasonably chosen This Answer shews us what their Nature is what their Distinction is and what Relation they stand in to each other which is the most perfect knowledge we can have of the Ever-blessed Trinity in this world SECT III. That the Title of GOD attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the Signification of Ecclesiastical Words 1. AS for the first the design of some common Name for these Three is to form some common Notion and Idea of them in which they all agree And is any thing else so common to them Is there any thing else which is common to them but the Name and Nature of God Can any thing else give us so true and perfect a Character and Idea of each of them as this does When we say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God we attribute every thing to each of them which signifies any Perfection for the Idea of God comprehends all possible Perfections And we reject every thing which has the least signification of Imperfection we abstract our minds from all Material and Creature-Images which Names common to Creatures are apt to impose upon us and when we are forced to apply any such Names to God we learn from hence in what Notion to understand such Words when applied to God Men may very subtilly distinguish between the formal Conceptions of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person Personality Suppositality and the like and neither understand God nor Creatures much the better for it But let them but tell us what they mean by these Terms and then every Child can tell whether they belong to Father Son and Holy Ghost or not For as far as they are included in the Notion of God and signify true Divine Perfections so far they belong to all Three For if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then Father Son and Holy Ghost each of them by themselves are whatever is included in the Notion and Idea of
in God yet when he begets a Son he neither begets his own Person nor Nature which would be to beget himself which St. Austin and the Schools after him reject as absurd for an Image of God is neither the Person nor the Personal Nature of God but of the same Nature with him and perfectly the same there being no other difference between them but that one is the Prototype the other the Image one the Father the other the Son So that when God of his own whole perfect Substance begets a whole perfect living substantial Image he does not beget himself but another he does not beget his own Nature nor another Nature like his own but his own Image of the same Nature with himself He begets another Person who is as truly and perfectly God as the true perfect living Image of God must be perfect God but he does not in an absolute sense beget God neither se Deum nor alium Deum as the Schools rightly determine neither himself God nor another God for he neither begets his own Essence and Divinity nor another Divinity but another who is the perfect Image of his own Divine Essence And what is here said of the Generation of the Son as the living subsisting Image of God must be applied to the Procession of the Holy Spirit who is the Eternal Spirit of God as the Son is his Image This is what the Catholick Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that One Divinity in which they place the Unity of God That there is but One Absolute Divinity or Divine Nature which is the Person of the Father who is therefore eminently acknowledged to be the One God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fountain of the Divinity that is of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit which are not two other Absolute Divinities for then they would be two more Gods besides the Father but the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is the same One Divinity of the Father as an Eternal Perfect Begotten Living Image and an Eternal Proceeding Spirit each of which is in himself true and perfect God and all Three but One God or One Divinity not merely because they receive their Divinity from God by an Eternal Generation and Procession nor as they have a Divinity or Divine Nature specifically the same with the Father which alone can no more render them One God than Father and Son are One Man but as the singular individual Divinity of the Father is in the Son and Holy Spirit as it is manifest the singular individual Nature of the Prototype is and must be in its living substantial Image without which it is not a Natural Image though it may have a perfect likeness of Nature if it have an absolute Nature of its own This is what Tertullian tells us That there is unus Deus cum oeconomia One God with his Economy and what St. Hilary and others so often tell us That the Father does not cease to be the One God by having a Son since the Son is God by Nativity and Birth and Authoritate Paternoe Naturoe by having his Father's Nature who is the One God And this is all that the Schools mean by the Singularity of the Divine Nature and Essence and it is impossible they should mean any thing else when they teach that this singular Nature is communicable They allow as I have already shewn that Nature and Person is the same that each Person is Suppositum and Substance a singular incommunicable Substance and therefore that there were Three Suppositums and in that sense Three Substances in the Trinity but not Three Natures and Essences though each Person be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature and Essence Now since what is strictly singular is Numerically One and what is Numerically One and never can be more can't be multiplied as that seems to be which is communicated what sense can there possibly be in a singular communicable which seem to be contradictory Terms But this is very good sense and very Catholick Doctrine if we understand this Singular Communicable as the Schools did of One absolute Divinity or Divine Nature which is so singular that it can be but One as is demonstrable by Reason But yet may beget its own essential Image which is not another Divinity or another Nature but it s own singular Nature in its Image which is another Suppositum and Person but not another Nature That this is the Sense of the Schools and all that they meant by the Singularity of the Divine Essence is evident from the whole Doctrine of Relations A Trinity of Proper Real Persons each of which is Nature Essence and Substance was made an Argument against the perfect Unity as well as against the perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature for Plurality and Unity are opposed to each other To this the Schools answer That a Plurality and Unity of the same kind are indeed opposite to each other and cannot be reconciled as a Plurality of Natures cannot be reconciled with the Unity of Nature nor a Plurality of Persons with the Unity of a Person but a Plurality of Persons and Unity of Nature may be reconciled and thus it is with the Trinity in Unity for though each Divine Person be the Divine Nature and Essence yet Three Divine Persons are not Three Absolute Natures and Essences but Three Relations in One Singular Absolute Nature SECT VIII Concerning the Divine Relations BUT it will be of great use more particularly to consider this Doctrine of Relations without which it is impossible rightly to understand what the Schools teach about a Trinity in Unity And to reduce it into as narrow a compass as I can I shall 1. shew What the Schools mean by Relations in the Divine Nature 2. Why they insist so much upon Relations 1. What they mean by Divine Relations Now they tells us That they are real Relations not made by the Mind from some external Respects and Habitudes which it observes between things but antecedent to all the Acts of Reason in the things themselves That they are not inherent Accidents but Substance and subsisting Relations not relative Names and Appellations but the Relatives themselves the Persons related being the Relations and the Relation the Person which are therefore by some called Substantiae Relativae and Entia Realia Relativa Relative Substances and Real Beings but Relative that is not Absolute Substances and Absolute Beings with a Relation as it is in Creatures where the Son is as Absolute a Man and as Absolute a Person as the Father is though they are related to each other as Father and Son but the very Substance and Person is the Relation Before I shew That this is the Doctrine of the Schools the better to understand what they say and the Reasons of it it will be necessary to give as plain and intelligible an Idea of this as I can especially
Singularity of the Divine Essence for it proves quite the contrary it is the Unity of Three which is a Trinity in Unity not the Unity of One which is Singularity and Solitude In the next place I observe That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Catholick Fathers understand in this Mystery the inseparable Union of Relatives in the same Individual Nature not the Union of compleat absolute Natures how close and inseparable soever it may be There is by Nature no Inseparable Union but in the same Individual Nature Three compleat Individuals though of the same Kind and Species how closely and intimately soever they be united are not by Nature inseparable nor essentially One for they may be parted by that Power which united them and when they are parted can subsist apart as Three compleat Minds how intimately soever they should be united by God yet can never be essentially and inseparably One for they are not essential to each other they might have subsisted apart and may be parted again and an External Union cannot so make them One as to be naturally inseparable Which I think is a Demonstration that a Natural Inseparability which is an Essential Unity can be only in One Individual Nature between such Relatives as are Essential to each other and can neither be nor be conceived divided or separated And therefore the Catholick Fathers represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Examples of Natural Unions between things Essentially related to each other in One Individual Nature which either cannot be conceived or at least cannot subsist apart Of this last Kind are a Fountain and its Streams a Tree and its Branches whereby they not only represent the Homoousion but the Inseparable Union of the Divine Persons as every one knows for there cannot be a Fountain but its Waters must flow out nor Streams without a Fountain from whence they flow and though Branches may be separated from the Tree yet they live no longer than they are united and are Branches of that Tree no longer But these are very imperfect Images and without great caution will corrupt our Ideas of the Divine Unity Of all Corporeal Unions the nearest resemblance we have of this and which the Fathers most insist on is the Sun and its natural Splendor for we cannot conceive the Sun without its Splendor nor the Splendor without the Sun they never were never can be parted and therefore though two are essentially one This Representation the Scripture makes of it which calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Brightness of his Father's Glory and in this Sense they teach that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light of Light as it is in the Nicene Creed whereby they do not mean two distinct independent Lights which either are or may be parted though one be lighted at the other this was the Heresy of Hierachas as St. Hilary tells us who represented this Mystery by two Candles one of which is lighted at the other or by one and the same Lamp which is divided and burns in two Sockets but that Light and Splendor which is essential to the same Sun and can never be divided from it as Athanasius teaches But the truest Images we have of this in Nature is the Inseparable Union which is between a Mind and its own Internal Word which are so essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature that they can never be parted nor conceived apart the Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind It is evident That two compleat absolute Minds can never be thus united for they are not Essential to each other not naturally one and therefore not naturally inseparable but a Mind and its Word though two are essentially One and therefore can never be parted but must subsist together and these are the Characters the Scripture gives us of God the Father and his Son the Father Infinite Eternal Self-originated Mind the Son his Eternal Infinite Living Subsisting Word And if Father and Son this Eternal Mind and Eternal Word be as essentially One as a mans Mind and his Word are One this is a Demonstration of their Inseparable Union and gives us a sensible Notion and Idea of it This is the account Athanasius every where gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Father and Son are inseparably One the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Light in the Sun To separate the Divine Persons so as not to be in each other whatever other Union we own between them Dionysius of Alexandria charges with Tritheism for the Divine Word must of necessity be one with God and the Holy Spirit be and subsist in him And this Athanasius resolves into such a Sameness and Unity of Nature as must be between two Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature That the Son is in the Father as the Word is in the Mind and the Splendor in the Sun that he is a genuine proper natural Son in the Father's Essence and Substance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not subsisting out of his Father's Substance as other Creature Sons do That the true Notion of the Sons being in the Father is that the whole Being of a Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Genuine Natural Birth of the Father's Substance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Splendor is of the Sun That the very Being of the Son is the Form of Species and Divinity of the Father That as the Sun and its Splendor are two but not two Lights but one Light from the Sun enlightening all things with its Splendor and Brightness so the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father and therefore inseparable and thus there is but one God and none else besides him All this plainly refers to the Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Relatives of the same Individual Substance which are really distinct but essentially in each other as the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word that Thought it self cannot part them which is such an Union as can never be between compleat absolute Substances which are not naturally Inseparable nor essentially One. Herein Athanasius places the adequate Notion of the Homoousion the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature He tells us That for this reason the Nicene Fathers taught the Homoousion or that the Son is Consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father to signify that the Son is not only like the Father but to be so of the Father as to be the same in likeness not after the manner of Bodies which are like each other but subsist apart by themselves as Human Sons subsist separately from their Parents but the Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father is of a different Kind and Nature from Human Generations for he is not only like but inseparable from his Father's Substance
He and the Father are One as he himself says The Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word as it is with Light and its Splendor and this is what the Homoousion signifies and in like manner he resolves the Sameness Identity and Unity of Nature into this Internal Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Three essentially related to each other in One Individual Divinity 4 thly That Mutual Inbeing of the Divine Persons which is their Inseparable and Essential Union that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latins Circumincessio can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance The true compleat Notion of this Inbeing or Perichoresis is not merely a Mutual Presence or the same Vbi that where-ever one is there the other is or a kind of Immeation and Penetration of each other which is a Corporeal Notion and rejected as such by the Catholick Fathers when they speak of this Divine Inbeing as St. Hilary expressly does inesse autem non aliud in alio ut corpus in corpore that they are not in each other as one Body is in another Body And when the Arians objected against our Saviour's saying I am in the Father and the Father in me How can this be in that and that in this Or how can the Father who is greater be at all in the Son who is less Or what wonder is it that the Son should be in the Father when it is written of us all That in him we live and move and have our being Athanasius answers That this is all owing to Corporeal Conceits as if they apprehended God to be a Body not considering the Nature of the True Father and true Son the Invisible and Eternal Light and its Invisible Splendor an Invisible Substance and its unbodied Character and Image But the true Notion of this Inbeing and Pericharesis is the Perfect Unity of the same Individual Nature in Three That the Nature and Essence of the Father is in the Son that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character Image Mind Divinity of the Father Here as Athanasius observes our Saviour himself lays the Reason and Foundation of this Mutual Inbeing He first tells us I and my Father are One and then adds I am in the Father and the Father in me that he might shew the Sameness and Identity of the Godhead and the Unity of Essence For they are One not One divided into two Parts and nothing more than One for they are Two the Father is the Father and not the Son and the Son is the Son and not the Father but there is but One Nature for he that is begotten is not unlike in Nature to him that begets but is his Image and all that the Father hath is the Sons There is no need to multiply Quotations to this purpose which may be met with every where The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father as the Nature of the Father is lives and subsists in the Son not a Nature like the Fathers but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father 's own proper Nature and Essence they are in each other as being essentially One not One merely as being in each other as it is possible Three may be and yet not be essentially One but Three as Three compleat absolute Minds would be Three still though they should perfectly penetrate each other Or as Three Candles in the same Room are Three Lights though they are perfectly united in One But Original Mind its Word and Spirit are and must be in each other as being Three in One Individual Essence for the same undivided Essence can't be whole and entire in Three but those Three must be in each other If the Divinity of the Father is in the Son the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father the Mind is in its Word and the Word in the Mind The Son is in the Father as eternally begotten in the Substance of the Father whole of whole and essentially one and the same as the Word is in the Mind not by such an Union and Penetration as we may suppose between two Minds but as conceived in the Mind and essentially one and the same with it Now according to this Representation which all the Catholick Fathers make of this Mystery we must of necessity acknowledge Number without Multiplication Distinction without Division or Separation a perfect Trinity in perfect Unity Three Persons each of which is by himself True and Perfect God but not Three Gods but One God A Mind and its Word are two and a living subsisting Word is true and perfect Mind Mind of Mind and yet not two Minds but one Mind for the Mind and its Word are essentially One as all Men must confess the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word and therefore identically one and the same for which reason the Fathers acknowledge that the Father is Spirit the Son Spirit and the Holy Ghost Spirit and these are Three but not Three Spirits as essentially related to each other in the same individual Essence essentially the same and essentially in each other And thus Will of Will Wisdom of Wisdom Life of Life Power of Power though they multiply and distinguish Persons do not multiply Wills Wisdoms Lives Powers which are essentially One as the Mind its Word and Spirit are One They are not One Life One Will One Understanding One Power in the Sense of but One who Lives who Wills who Understands and has Power but as the same identically the same Life and Will c. is in each of them and indivisibly and inseparably in them all And this gives an account of the Unity of Operation wherein the Catholick Fathers unanimously place the Unity of God for One Almighty Agent is but One God and One Essential Will Wisdom and Power can be but One Agent and Infinite Original Mind and its Eternal subsisting Word can have but One Will and Wisdom and Power for the Will and Wisdom of the Mind is in its Word the same not merely specifically the same or the same by consent as it may be between Two Minds which Will perfectly the same thing but the same One Individual Will the Father Wills and the Son Wills and they both Will distinctly but with one Individual Will as it is impossible that the Word should Will with any other Will but the Will of that Mind whose Word it is And therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost though Three Eternal Infinite Living Intelligent Willing Persons which Subsist and Act distinctly yet being that to each other in a more perfect and excellent manner that Mind its Word and Spirit are in Men they must be as perfectly One Almighty Agent as a created Mind is which Wills and Acts in its Word and Spirit The Distinction and Unity of
Operation necessarily proves the Distinction and Unity of Essence it being in our way of conceiving things a necessary effect of it there must be some real Distinction in the same Nature and Essence in which there are Three who Act distinctly and there must be an Individual Unity of Essence when in Three there is but One Individual Operation and though these things may be distinguished in Creatures where we distinguish the Suppositum and the Powers and give a priority of Nature to the Suppositum yet Essence and Energy being the same in God who is a pure simple Act there can be no priority nor posteriority between them but the Demonstration proceeds equally upon Nature or Operation but that is the best which is the most intelligible Representation of this Distinction and Unity For this reason the Fathers chose to explain the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the Distinction and Unity of Operation which I need not prove at large as being universally owned and therefore I shall only observe how St. Gregory Nyssen represents this matter In his Answer to Ablabius that there are not Three Gods he tells us That the best way to form the clearest and most perspicuous Notion of this is to examine what this Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Godhead signifies Now whereas some think this a proper Name to signify the Divine Nature and Essence he asserts with the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divine Nature and Essence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Name and can't be signified by words and that every Name which is given to God signifies something essential to him but not his Nature and Essence it self This he shews particularly in some Names given to God and affirms That thus it is in all other Divine Names that either they remove all Imperfections or attribute all Divine Perfections to him but do not declare his Nature And thus he adds it is in the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God is a Sâ—er an Inspector who beholds all things Now if God signifies him who sees and knows all things we must inquire whether this All-seeing Power belongs only to one of the Divine Persons of the Trinity or to all Three For if this be the true interpretation of the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is an All-seeing Power and that He that sees all is God we cannot reasonably deny this to any Person in the Holy Trinity since the Scripture does equally attribute this Omniscience to Father Son and Holy Ghost Well! suppose this as he adds it does not remove but encrease the difficulty for though God be not a Name of Nature but of Energy and Power if the Name God signifies a Seer and Inspector and there be Three who thus see all things Three must be Three Gods as we number Persons of the same Profession who all do the very same things as well as those who have the same Nature as we say many Orators Mathematicians and the lâ—ke as well as many Mâ—n Now this he answers by the Unity of Energy and Power which is in each of them but is but One indivisible inseparable Power not as it is in Men who each of them acts separately by himself and though they do the same thing for kind yet what each of them does is properly his own doing and not anothers They act separately and produce distinct and separate Effects and therefore are many Agents But it is quite otherwise as to the Divine Nature The Father does nothing by himself without the Son nor the Son without the Holy Ghost but each Divine Operation proceeds originally from the Father is continued by the Son and perfected in the Holy Spirit and therefore the name of Energy is not divided into a number of Agents because neither of them acts separately by himself And this he proves from the Unity of the Effect that whatever good thing we receive from God as suppose Life is attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost but though it be given by Three that which is given or done for us is not Three we do not receive three Lives one from each Person of the Trinity but we have but one Life which we receive from them all Now where there is but One Undivided Effect there can be but One Natural Agent for separate Agents will produce separate Effects and therefore there can be but one motion of the Divine Will from the Father by the Son to the Holy Spirit and that without distance and Succession Now it is plain that all this does not signify a mere Unity of Consent as may be between Three Distinct and Separate Minds but the Unity of Principle which acts distinctly but uniformly and inseparably in Three the same Divine Will which is originally in the Father acting in the same manner and with one indivisible motion as they speak in the Son and Holy Spirit which Unity of Operation though it admits of distinct Acts and consequently a real distinction of Persons yet proves the individual Unity of Essence for there can be no Unity of Principle or Operation but in the same Individual Essence where Three Persons are united in the same Individual Essence as the Mind its Word and Spirit are in Man And here had there not been enough already said about it is a proper Place to vindicate that late Representation which has been made of the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the self-consciousness and mutual consciousness of the Divine Persons I have met with no body yet so hardy as to deny that Self-consciousness is essential to the natural Unity of a Person and that Three Persons cannot be naturally and essentially One without mutual Consciousness But the great Objection against this Notion and which I am amazed to find some Learned Men insist on is the order of Nature which requires that a Person should be One by an Unity of Nature before it can be self-conscious and that Three Persons must be One by the Unity of Nature before they can be mutually conscious For the Unity of Nature and the Union of Persons in the same Nature must be before all Acts of Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness And that which in the order of Nature comes after such a Distinction and Union cannot be the cause of it But who ever thought of causes of Distinction and Unity in an Eternal Nature which has no cause Did the Fathers philosophize thus concerning Priority and Posteriority in the Divine Nature when they placed the Unity of the Godhead in the Unity of Energy and Operation For does not the same Objection lie against the Unity of Energy and Operation that does â—gainst mutual consciousness which is essential to this Unity of Energy that the Divine Persons must first be One before they
he allows to be a good Argument against the Arians which he could not have done had he not allowed this Consciousness in the Trinity but then observes That the Arians did as effâ—ctually consute them as to the distinction of Persons and thus between them both the Catholick Faith of a real distinction of Persons in the Sameness and Conscious Unity of Nature was vindicated In short If the whole Divine Nature is conscious to it self as every Created Mind is conscious to all that is in it self and the Three Divine Persons subsist in the Individual Unity of the same Nature then these Divine Persons must be intimately and mutually conscious to each other as a Mind its Word and Spirit are and however Men please to philosophize about this as to the prius posterius whether they will make the Unity of Nature the cause of this mutual Consciousness and therefore in order of Nature prior to it or make mutual Consciousness not the cause of this Unity but the Essential Union of Three Distinct Subsisting Persons in the Unity of the same Individual Nature I will not contend with any Man which of these speak most properly Consciousness is the Unity of an Intelligent Nature and the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature and the Conscious Unity of Nature in Three Distinct Persons is the same thing We cannot conceive the Unity of a Mind without Consciousness nor any other kind of Unity of a Mind but a Conscious Unity nor can we conceive an Internal Essential Consciousness without an Essential Unity and if the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature is the Consciousness of Nature I cannot see why we may not say That it is at least One Notion of the Unity of Nature too But to return where I left off if this may be called a a Digression what I have now said is sufficient to shew how necessary this Doctrine of Relations is to give us a sensible notion of a Trinity in Unity To assert a Real Trinity we must assert Three Real Distinct Subsisting Substantial Intelligent Persons neither of which is each other and each of which is by himself in his own proper Person True and Perfect God But this say Sabellians Arians and Socinians is to assert Three Gods which the Catholick Church always abhorred the thoughts of Now how the Fathers answered this Charge and vindicated the Divine Unity in a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons I have already particularly shown as by the Consubstantiality the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature whole of whole their Inseparability and Unity of Operation but we can form no distinct Idea of all this but only among Personal Subsisting Relatives of the same Individual Nature Whatever is not this is a meer Specifick Consubstantiality and Identity of Nature and an External Union how inseparable soever it be which must make a number of Individuals in the Divine as well as Human Nature but now it is plain to a Demonstration That if God hath an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Subsisting Spirit they can be but One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and Word and Spirit are One and therefore all Three but One God as a Man with his Mind and Word and Spirit iâ— but One Man which is an Intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Individual Essence and Godhead For though the Word of God be a Person which a Mâ—n's Word is not yet if his true Nature and Character is the Word he is the same to the Eternal Mind which a Man's Word is to his Created Mind and therefore God and his Living Subsisting Word must be One Individual Essence as a Man's Mind and his Word are One a Word must be conceived and begotten of the Mind and can have no other Substance if it be a Living Substantial Word but that of the Mind and if it be a perfect Word the perfect Image of the Mind it must be whole of whole all that the Mind is for the whole Mind is in its perfect Word and Image and lives and subsists in it and the whole Word in the Mind So that the Câ—eternity the Coequality the Consubstantiality the Identity the Inseparability the Unity of Operation between God and his Word is so far from being Jargon Contradiction Unintelligible Nonsense that iâ— God have an Eternal Word it is self-evident that thus it must be When we contemplate the Consubstantiality of Father and Son under the notion of Substance we can form no Idea of a whole which is of a whole that the Father should communicate his whole Essence and Substance to the Son and be the whole himself and this is no great wonder since we can form no Idea at all of the Divine Substance but we can very well understand That the Whole Mind must be in its Word that the Eternal Mind and its Word must be Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal Two but perfectly the same inseparably in each other for all this is included in the very Relation and Notion of a Mind and its Word I 'm sure a Living Subsisting Word which is not Consubstantial Coeternal Coequal with that Eternal Mind whose Word it is that a Mind should be without its Word that an Infinite Eternal Mind which is perfect Life and Being should have a vanishing perishing Word as Man has not a living subsisting Word that a Mind and its Word should ever be parted that the Word should not be and subsist in the Mind and the Mind in the Word I say all this contradicts all the Notions we have of a Mind and its Word We cannot immediately and directly contemplate the Divine Nature and Essence which is so infinitely above us and therefore we must contemplate it in such Ideas and Representations as God himself makes of it and if they are such as we can form an intelligible notion of we have no reason to complain of unintelligible Mysteries and Contradictions though when we reduce it into Terms of Art we find our Minds confounded and perplext and unable to form any distinct and easy Ideas The Arians to avoid the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father would not allow the Term Substance to be used of God the Catholick Fathers proved that Substance is in Scripture used concerning God and that the Arians could not reasonably reject it because they used it themselves for though they would not own the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father they taught that he was of another Substance which still is to own Substance in God But though God be in the most true and absolute sense perfect Essence and Being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to St. Ambrose his derivation of the Word which shews what he meant by it whether it shews his skill in Greek or not that Essence and Substance is that which always is and that which always is is God and therefore God is Essence and Substance and a
Notions by common to God and Creatures These Creature-Ideas and Creature Terms can be applied to God only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and that a very imperfect one too 2. Let us then consider how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the explication of this Mystery and what they intended to represent by them I shall do this in as few words as possibly I can that what I have to say may be the more easily understood They tell us That all Nature is common that Human Nature is common to all Mankind and the Divine Nature common to all the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost not that they thought the Divinity or Godhead a common Nature merely as Human Nature is common but there is this Analogy between them that the Divine Nature is not singular or does not subsist in Singularity but in Three Hypostases as Human Nature is common because it is not confined to one but is in all Human Hypostases and that the Divine Nature is perfectly and invariably the same in each Hypostasis as the Human Nature is which for this Reason is called a common not a particular Nature which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness Identity not Singularity of Nature in the Blessed Trinity Thus far the Analogy holds which is a direct opposition both to Sabellianism and Arianism but it reaches no farther for the Divine Nature is not a common Specifick Nature as all Created Nature is common for the Godhead is no Species that is there is and can be but One God Which I have already at large shewn to be the Sense of the Fathers They expresly teach That the Divine Nature is an Individual Nature but not Singular it is common as being whole and perfect in more Hypostases than One which excludes Singularity but it is one whole Entire Individual Nature so one Individual as Human Nature is one in one Man For though Individual and Singular is the same in Creatures it is not so in the Divine Nature nor can it be if the Catholick Faith be One Nature One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases And if we can form any sensible Notion of this it will silence all the pretences of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Tritheism which are so constantly objected against this Venerable Mystery And therefore I shall briefly inquire 1. What that One Divinity is which is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost and how it is common 2. How this common Nature is in a strict and proper Sense One Individual Nature And I think this is easily accounted for from the Doctrine of the Fathers 1. As for the first This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father the Natura Patris the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father who is the Eternal Self-originated Mind which has no Second and therefore there can be no other no Second or Third Divinity Now this One Divine Nature One Divinity of the Father is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit Common I say not merely as Human Nature is common to all Men because it is the same in all perfectly the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be not the same Individual Nature in all which is singular and incommunicable in Creatures but it is common by a perfect communication whole of whole that it is no New Divinity but the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son who is therefore so often as I observed above called the Nature and Divinity and Mind of the Father his Image and Character and that which is signified by all this his Eternal Living Omnipotent Word I do not intend to prove all this over again which I have abundantly proved already but only to put every thing into its proper place that we may view the Whole in a true light This Divine Nature then of the Father which is but One is that One Divinity which is by an Eternal Ineffable Generation communicated whole and perfect to the Son and by a like Eternal and Ineffable Procession to the Holy Spirit But still the difficulty is How this is One Nature which is not Singular nor subsists in Singularity but in Three Proper Distinct Compleat Hypostases or Persons 2. And therefore rightly to apprehend this we must inquire into the Notion of One Individual Nature Now that which is most obvious and which the Fathers perpetually alledge in justification of the Divine Unity is That an Individual is an undivided Nature and therefore the One Divinity of the Father though actually communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit is One Individual Divinity because it is communicated whole and perfect without Division or Separation and that which is undivided is One. But though to be undivided be essential to the Notion of an Individual Nature yet there must be something else to compleat this Notion or at least to give us a more distinct conception of it Could Human Nature propagate it self whole and compleat to Two or Three without any division or separation of Substance this could not make it One Individual Nature though they were undivided for One Individual Nature is One whole Compleat Nature without division which is all that is essential to such a Being and is this all but once and that without division But how will this agree with the Notion of One Divinity or One Individual Divine Nature For does not the One Divine Nature which is the Divinity of the Father subsist compleatly and distinctly though without division and separation in the Son and Holy Ghost and will you call this One Individual Nature which is not singularly in One but subsists distinctly in Three Yes I will because all these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost are essential to the Notion of One Divinity and therefore are One Individual Divinity in Three for an Individual Nature is that which without division has all that is essential to such a Nature Well But is not the Father then in his own Person True and Perfect God and the Son True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God that is Have not each of these Divine Persons all the Divine Perfections included in the Notion and Idea of God And are they not Three who have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature and how then is this One Individual Nature I answer When I say That One Individual Nature is that which has all that is essential to such a Nature by Essential I mean not only Essential Properties Qualities Powers and Perfections which are commonly called Nature there being no other notion of Nature in Created Beings but Essential Productions too which when there is any such thing are as essential to Nature as any other Properties or Perfections In the first Sense of Essential the Divine Nature is not singular but communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by Father
late warm Dispute about One Substance and Three Substances in the Unity of the Godhead for the Dispute is the very same in other words with One Nature and Three Persons The Nicene Fathers who asserted the Homoousion the One Nature and Substance of Father and Son did not by this mean One Singular Substance as I have abundantly shewn and those who assert Three Substances in opposition to Sabellianism do not mean Three Absolute nor Three divided and separated Substances but One Individual Substance as there is One Individual Nature in Three Substantial Subsisting Persons That is There is but One Absolute Substance with Two Relative Substantial Procefsions in the Individual Unity of the same One Substance Which the Schools make no scruple to call Three Relative Substances All Catholick Writers both Ancient and Modern own that the Father is Substance the Son Substance and the Holy Ghost Substance but yet are cautious of saying Three Substances nor will they say ter Vna thrice One Substance because Number does not belong to the Nature but to the Persons though at the same time they own that Deus trinus signifies tria supposita Deitatis These seem to be great Niceties and Arbitrary Distinctions without any reason and foundation in Nature for what difference is there between Three Substances and Three Relative Substances For Relative Substances are Substances What difference between Three Substances and tria supposita when suppositum is only another name for Substance and so St. Hilary as I have observed called them tres substantias tria in substantia Three Substances and Three in Substance When there are Three each of which is in his own Person Substance and neither of them each other what difference is there between saying Tres in una substantia ter una substantia Three in One Substance and thrice Once Substance Marius Victorinus as I observed before ventures to say ter ipsa Substantia not ter una as it is mistaken in a late Treatise by trusting too much to memory thrice the very same Substance now thrice the same One Substance is thrice One Substance where the Number belongs to the Essence and Substance which is Aquinas's Objection against it But the whole Account of this must be resolved into the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Substance when it stands by it self signifies Absolutely and so Three Substances are Three Absolute Substances Three Human Substances Three Humanities and Three Divine Substances Three Divinities and therefore we must not without great caution say Three Substances in the Trinity for fear of asserting Three Gods but yet we must own that each Person is True and Perfect Substance and both the Fathers and Schools own this and Three in Substance are Three Substances but not Three Absolute but Relative Substances Three Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Divine Essence and Substance Though as I have more than once observed in proper speaking we cannot say Three Relative Substances for though the Father speaks a Relation to the Son and Holy Spirit it is as he is the Fountain of the Deity Original Absolute Divinity Essence Substance in his own Person not a Relative Subsistence and therefore in the Blessed Trinity there is One Absolute Substance Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Substances as there are Two Internal Substantial Relations in the Unity of the same Substance And to prevent Mistakes I must here observe That by Absolute we do not mean Compleat and Perfect for so the Son is Absolute Substance and the Holy Spirit Absolute Substance Compleat and Perfect Substance as each of them in his own Person is True and Perfect God in which Sense St. Austin tells us that persona ad se dicitur that Person is predicated absolutely that every Person as considered in himself is a Person and not merely as related to another but when we say that there is but One Absolute Substance in the Godhead by Absolute we mean Original as I have already explained it as distinguished from Relative Processions as the Original is distinguished from the Image though the Image if a Living Subsisting Image is as Compleat and Perfect Nature and Substance as the Original is And this is the only difference I know between Substance Nature Essence and Suppositum Subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thing Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence and the like That the first signify Absolutely or as the Schools speak the Form that is an Original Substance Nature and Essence and therefore these must not be multiplied in the Divinity by saying Three Substances Natures or Essences for fear of a Diversity or Number of Divinities and Gods The other Terms though they do not in common use signify Relatively as Subject Suppositum Thing Being Subsistence do not yet they signify any thing that really is that has a Compleat Actual Subsistence of its own and therefore are applicable to all substantial relative Processions which are compleat Subsistencies Things Beings as well as to original Nature and Substance And both the Fathers and Schools for this reason owned the Three Divine Persons to be Three Things Three Beings Tres Entes Tria Entia Tres Res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scruple not the use of any such transcendental Terms as do not necessarily multiply the absolute and original Form Thus the One Substance of the Godhead either signifies the absolute Divinity of the Father and this is but One and can never be Ter Vna Thrice One or it signifies the One individual undivided Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost that is the absolute Divinity of the Father with his internal essential Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of Nature and this it is but One Substance for there is but One Individual Nature not Ter Vna but Tres in Vna not Thrice One Substance but Three in One Undivided Nature and Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have sometimes not so properly translated a Thrice subsisting Monad but it is a Monad with Three Hypostases which in other words is One Nature and Three Persons not One singular Nature Thrice subsisting which I cannot understand but One individual Nature and Three subsisting Hypostases Vna Substantia non Vnus Subsistens One Substance not One that subsists This Individual Nature subsists but once but in the Individual Unity of the Father's Essence and Godhead are those Eternal Substantial Subsisting Processions the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit And in this sense the One Individual Substance of the Divinity may properly enough be stiled Ter ipsa or Ter Vna Substantia Thrice the same One Substance not Thrice One Absolute Substance in which sense Aquinas rejected it but Tria Supposita Vnius Substantiae or Deitatis which is One Substance by the individual Unity and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature as I have shewn above Thus that warm Dispute among the Schoolmen about one Absolute Subsistence and Existence in the
Trinity and Three Relative Subsistencies and Existences which is managed with so much perplexing Subtilty as far as I can understand any thing by it may easily be composed after the same manner For there is but One Absolute Being and Nature in the Divinity and therefore there can be but One Absolute Subsistence and Existence as Absolute signifies not Compleat and Perfect but to subsist and exist as an Original which in the Godhead signifies a self-originated Subsistence and Existence But then to deny all relative Subsistencies and Existencies is to deny the compleat Subsistence and Existence of the Son and Spirit who are essential Relations in the Unity of the Father's Godhead and therefore subsist not as Originals but as Relatives which is the meaning of a Relative Subsistence There is but One Absolute Divinity and Two Relative Processions and therefore in this sense but One Absolute and Two not Three Relative Subsistencies which seems fairly to divide the Question between them Thus once more It is a known Rule of speaking in this Mystery That Substantives must be predicated in the Singular Number Adjectives will admit a Plural Predication and the same difference is made between Abstract and Concrete Terms There are not Three Gods but Tres Deit atem habentes there are Three who have the Divinity not Three Omnipotencies or Three Omnisciencies but Three who are Omnipotent and Omniscient And the approved reason for this is That Substantives and Abstract Terms signify the Nature Essence and Form and to multiply them is to multiply Natures but Adjectives immediately signify the Subjects Suppositums and Persons and only connote the Nature and Form which multiplies the Persons but not the Nature Now though I understand what is meant by this when applied to the Divinity yet I never could understand this Reason for it for there is no such difference between Substantive and Adjective Predications in any other Case Three men and Three who have Human Nature signify the very same thing and multiply the Form as well as the Persons Three who have Human Nature are truly and properly Three men and then the meer difference between Substantives and Adjectives cannot be a good Reason why Three who have the Divine Nature are not Three Gods But the difference between an Absolute and Relative Predication does give an account of this Substantives and Abstract Terms always signify the Form as the Schools speak that is an Absolute and Original Nature and in this Sense Number multiplies Nature as well as Persons and Three Gods are Three Absolute Original Divinities as wellas Three Divine Persons and thus it is as to Adjective Predications in all Creatures as I observed before because there is no such distinction in Creatures between an Absolute Nature and Internal Subsisting Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature and when Nature always signifies the Original Form a Substantive or Adjective Predication can make no difference but where there is such a distinction as there is in the Divinity Substantives and Adjectives do most aptly represent it because Adjectives admit of a Relative Predication and may signify a Person who has the Divine Nature as an Internal Subsisting Procession in the Divinity but is not the Absolute Divinity nor in an Absolute Sense God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Indeed in such Forms of Speech we must have more regard to the Absolute or Relative Signification than to the Substantive or Adjective Form of the Words Adjectives in an Absolute Sense must no more be multiplied than Substantives which I take to be an easier Account of the tres aeterni and unus aeternus in the Athanasian Creed than to turn it with Aquinas into tria aeterna and unum aeternum For Three Eternals whether Substantives or Adjectives in an Absolute Sense are Three Gods Three Eternal Three Intelligent Three Omniscient Persons in an Absolute Sense are Three Eternities Three Omnisciences and in this Sense there is but unus aeternus One Eternal Self Originated Person as there is but One God and on the other hand Deus or God though a Substantive may signify Relatively as it does in the Nicene Creed God of God and in this Sense some of the Schoolmen thought it very Orthodox to say Three Gods if we explained in what Sense we meant it as I observed above Tertullian did Ecce duos deos though at the same time he rejects the use of such Forms for their ambiguous Signification which might betray men into Polytheism And if God may have a Relative Signification so may Mind and Spirit too and then Three Minds and Spirits is as Orthodox as Three that have an Intelligent and Spiritual Nature In short as far as I can hitherto observe all the Catholick Rules of Speaking relating to this Mystery must be resolved into this distinction of Absolute and Relative This is the only distinction we know of in the Godhead and this we as certainly know there is as we know that there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit One Absolute Self-Originated Divinity with its Internal Essential Processions in the Individual Unity and Identity of Nature and if this be the Unity and Distinction of the Divinity this must be our Rule of Speaking also to have a due regard to the One Absolute Nature and the Relative Processions of the Godhead which will secure us both from a Sabellian Singularity and a Tritheistick Trinity of Absolute Divinities The CONCLUSION With a short Application to the Socinians I Proposed one thing more to be considered in relation to this Subject viz. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real aâ—d Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion delivers the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to But I hope after what I have already said there is no occasion for this and I will not needlesly revive old Quarrels Let but Men sincerely and heartily believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Eternal Infinite Substantial Living Intelligent Omnipotent All-wise Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God and all Three but One Divinity and One God and I will dispute with no such Orthodox Christians concerning the Philosophy of the Divine Nature which is so infinitely above our comprehension There may be a necessity for such Disputes when we have to do with Hereticks who ridicule the Catholick Faith as contradictions and absurd but when Men agree in the Faith such Disputes are of no use to them and may prove of dangerous consequence for there are too many who will be sooner disputed out of their Faith than out of their Philosophy which should teach all Catholick Christians as much as it is possible to silence all