Existence but in an absolutely perfect and infinite Nature but if there be Three Parts in the Deity Three Spiritual Beings of distinst and different Natures neither of them can be absolutely perfect and infinite though we could suppose their Union to make such a perfect Being because they are not the same and neither of them is the whole and therefore they cannot necessarily Exist and yet a Deity which consists of Parts cannot necessarily Exist unless its Parts necessarily Exist for a Compounded Being can Exist no otherwise than its Parts Exist But there is something in this which seems to have a very ill Aspect upon the Trinity it self as well as on the Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature He Professes indeed not to Iudge that we are under the precise Notions of Power Wisdom and Goodness to conceive of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though he has been for several Pages together Vindicating such a representation of the Trinity and teaching us thus to conceive of Father Son and Holy Ghost and thinks That this gives ease to our Minds by their being disentangled from any apprehended necessity of thinking these Power Wisdom and Goodness to be the very same things and if they be not the same thing but Three really distinct Spiritual Beings we must thus conceive of Father Son and Holy Ghost and then the difficulty is in a Compounded Deity by what name to call the Three Parts of the Composition Father Son and Holy Ghost whether as we are taught in the Athanasian Creed we must own each of them by himself to be God and Lord For if all Three by this Composition are but One God neither of them by himself is true and perfect God no more than a Part can be the Whole This might be thought a very invidious consequence had not he himself expresly owned it The Father Son and Spirit being supposed necessarily existent in this united State they cannot but be God and the Godhead by reason of this necessary Union cannot but be One. Yet so As that when you predicate Godhead or the name of God of any one of them you herein express a true but inadaequate conception of God i. e. The Father is God not excluding the Son and Holy Ghost the Son is God not excluding the Father and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost is God not excluding the Father and the Son As our Body is the Man not excluding the Soul our Soul is the Man not excluding the Body This Comparison of the Soul and Body which are the Parts of a Man and whose Union makes a compleat and perfect Man explains what he means by the inadaequate Conception of God when we apply the Name God distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost and in what Sence he says the Father is God but not so as to exclude the Son c. All Orthodox Christians own That the Father is God not excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost and that the Son is God not excluding the Father and the Holy Ghost c. but then by this they mean That the Father is true and perfect God has the whole entire Divinity in himself but yet the same whole entire Divinity distinctly and inseparably subsists in the Person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that the same whole undivided Divine Nature subsists entirely in Three distinct Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore each of them by himself in the most proper and adaequate Conception is true and perfect God tho' all Three are but one and the same God But the Inquirers Notion of God as applied to each Person is a very inadaequate Notion for it signifies only a part of the Deity That the Father is God because he is a part of the Godhead and the Son and the Holy Ghost God as parts also of the same One Godhead as the Soul is the Man because part of the Man and the Body also the Man as part of the Man and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them God but so as not to exclude each other as no One essential Part can exclude the rest This is such a Notion of the Unity of the Godhead as neither the Scriptures nor the ancient Church knew any thing of and I think there is little need to confute it In short as it makes a compounded Deity so it makes but One compounded Person for if the Godhead be but One by Composition as the Man is by the Union of Soul and Body if God be a Person he can be but One For if you call the Three Parts of the Godhead Three Persons yet neither of them is God but in a very improper and figurative Sence as a Part is called by the Name of the whole so that either there is no Person in the Godhead who is true and perfect God or there must be but One compounded Person as there is One compounded Godhead and there is an end of the Christian Trinity Some late Socinian Writers have been willing to compound this Dispute of a Tinity of Divine Persons for the Three Attributes of Power Wisdom and Goodness and if you have a mind to call these Three Spiritual Beings I believe they will not contend much about it for they are not so much afraid of Three Parts of a Deity as of Three Divine Persons each of which is true and perfect God This also necessarily destroys the Homoousion or Sameness of Nature which the ancient Church asserted in the Persons of the Holy Trinity for Three Spiritual Beings which are the Parts of this compounded Deity cannot be the same no more than Soul and Body are for the Parts of a compound how closely soever they are united cannot be the same for Three Same 's are not Three Parts but Three Wholes As to take his own Representation of it If Power Wisdom and Goodness be Father Son and Holy Ghost it is certain and he owâ—â— that Power is not the same with Wisdom and Goodness nor Wisdom the same with Power and Goodness and therefore the Son is not of the same Nature with his Father Which is another thing to be considered in the Enquirer's Notion that it destroys the Relations of the Ever-blessed Trinity for if Father Son and Holy Ghost be Three Parts of a compounded Deity though we should grant that their Union might make One God yet these Parts could neither beget nor be begotten nor proceed from each other and therefore could not be related to each other as Father and Son and Spirit but only as Three parts of the same Compositum If Power be the Father and Wisdom the Son how comes Wisdom to be the Son of Power and not to be Power as the Father is since a Father begets his own Likeness This destroys the natural Order and Subordination of the Persons in the Trinity if Power Wisdom and Goodness be Three real distinct things and Three Spiritual Beings which compleatly constitute the Godhead let any Man tell me which of these Three in order of Nature is the first second or third why one is the Father the other the Son and the third the Holy Ghost This makes me wonder to hear him talk of Promanations for an Emanative Cause never produces any thing but of its own Nature as Light naturally flows from the Sun But I will not 〈◊〉 this Postscript into another long Letter this is sufficient to my present Design to give you a 〈◊〉 and plain Representation of the 〈…〉 and leave you â—o judge of 〈◊〉 SIR Yours FINIS ADVERTISEMENT A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses With a Dissertation concerning the Author or Writer of the said Books and a general Argument to each of them By the Right Reverend Father in God Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells In Two Volumes Octavo Reason and Religion In some useful Reflections on the most Eminent Hypothesis concerning the first Principles and Nature of things with Advice suitable to the Subject and seasonable for these times Twelves A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for writing against the Socinians in answer to the Antapologist Quarto Printed for William Rogers Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hil. l. 11. de Trinit Damasc. l. 1. deimaginibus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyss. contra Eunom Orat. 12. p. 345. Petav. de Trin. p. 342. alibi Ambr. l. 3. de fide c. 7. Facundus pro defensione trium capit c. 1. p 19. Hil. l. de Synod Vindic. of Trin. p. 49. Vindic. p. 130 131 c. P. 122 123 c. P. 81. P. 83. Animad c. 3. Pag. 70. Vindic. p. 48. Page 71. Vindic. p. 268. Anim. p. 73 Anim. p. 74. Animad p. 75. Animad p. 76. Animad p. 48. Pag. 79. Pag. 80. Anim. Chap. 4. p. 90. Pag. 94. Pag. 101. Pag. 104. Pag. 107. Vindic. p. 8. Pag. 100. Anim. Chap. 5. p. 118. Vindic. p. 66. Pag. 119. * Ideo Ipsa mirabilis simplicitas commendatur quia non ibi in Trinitate aliud est esse aliud intelligere vel siquid aliud de dei natura dicitur Anima verò quia est etiam dum non intelligit aliud est quidem esse aliud est quod intelligit Aug. Evod. Ep. 102. Proinde in unum Deum Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum credamus ita ut nec filius credatur esse qui pater est nec pater qui filius est nec pater nec filius qui utriusque spiritus est Sed haec tria aequalia esse coaeterna omnino esse una natura Ibid. †Deinde quis audeat dicere patrem non intelligere per semetipsum sed per filium Ibid. Pag. 123. Ep. 176 177. Calm Discourse p. 19 20 21. Pag. 23. Pag. 25. Pag. 40. Pag. 45. Pag. 28 c. Pag. 31. Pag. 34. Pag. 37. Pag. 47.
will afford us any Conception of it Now suppose That after all these fair Appearances a spiteful Wit could start some difficulties in this Notion as it is not to be expected that in a matter of so high a Nature we should have such a perfect comprehension of it as to leave no difficulties unexplained ought not the Dean to have met with as fair Quarter as other Writers have done in the same cause Has he not given us as intelligible a representation and it is intended for no more of a Trinity in Unity as the Sun its Light and Splendor a Tree and its Branches a Fountain and its Streams or a Mathematical Cube Are not all these Accounts much more chargeable with Tritheism or Sabellianism are not the Sun its Light and Splendor as much Three but not so much One as Three Conscious Minds Can there be a Trinity in Unity unless there be a real and substantial Trinity What work could our Animadverter have made with the Ancient Fathers and some late Writers had he thought fit to have treated them as he has done Dr. Sherlock But it is in vain to expostulate when the Man not his Notions is in Fault and the only Comfort in such cases is That Malice is as blind as Love and so it has happened to the Animadverter as I shall make appear But before I particularly answer the Animadverter's Arguments against Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness and Three eternal Minds it will be necessary to Discourse something in general concerning a Trinity in Unity and the words whereby to express it For a Trinity in Unity is such a distinction and such an Union as is peculiar to the Godhead and though there are some faint resemblances of it in Nature yet Nature has nothing like it and then it is impossible we should have any words that can adaequately express it It may help to allay the heat and virulence of Disputation among those who heartily believe a Trinity in Unity as I hope the Animadverter does to discourse this matter plainly and briefly The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament every where assure us That there is but One GOD and not to take notice now of the more obscure intimations of a Trinity in the Old Testament Christ in his Gospel and his Apostles after him have ascribed the Name and Character and incommunicable Attributes of GOD to Three Father Son and Holy Ghost we are by the Command of Christ Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and we are blessed in their Name The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen Christ declares himself to be the Son of GOD and to be One with his Father and St. Iohn tells us That he is that Word which was in the beginning and was with God and was God That by him all things were made and without him was not any thing made that was made And the like Divine Attributes are ascribed to the Holy Spirit and therefore though there be One GOD we must acknowledge if we believe the Gospel that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead This is the true simplicity of the Christian Faith to believe Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One GOD that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost that the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost that the Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son but that the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and all Three but One God Now one would have thought that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles had been a sufficient Foundation for this Faith without any farther enquiries but the Devil very well knew That the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation by Christ and consequently the whole Christian Religion depended on this Faith and that the curiosity of Mankind the weakness of their Understandings and their vain presumption in measuring GOD himself by their narrow Conceits might easily be managed to unsettle these Foundations and therefore here he made some of his earliest Attempts The ancient Christians before this was made a matter of Dispute contented themselves with professing their Faith in One God Father Son and Holy Ghost but when Heresies in several Ages of the Church were broached and some to secure the Unity of the Godhead made Father Son and Holy Ghost no more than Three different Names belonging to Three different Appearances and Manifestations of the same One God others if they were not misunderstood or misrepresented did not only distinguish but separate Father Son and Holy Ghost and made Three absolute independent Gods of them and others denied the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which preserved the Unity of the Godhead by reducing the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit of God into the rank of Creatures This forced the Orthodox Fathers into a Dispute where they wanted Words adaequately to express their Sence The Doctrine which they constantly affirmed and defended against Hereticks of all sorts was this That Father Son and Holy Ghost were Three as really distinct from one another as Three humane Persons are and that each of them is true and perfect God and has all Divine Perfections in himself and yet that all Three are essentially One and the same eternal and infinite God But when they came to say what these Three are and how they are One by what Name to call this wonderful distinction and Unity here Words failed them as of necessity they must because there is no such Distinction and Unity in Nature and therefore no Name for it For the Names of distinction in ordinary use do not only distinguish but divide and separate their Subjects and the Names of Unity signifie singularity also which admits no number And this has occasioned most of our cavilling Disputes and raised all the noise and clamour about Absurdities and Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity and there is no help for this if Men will ask such Questions as the proper and natural signification of Words cannot reach the Mystery of and not allow such a Theological use of Words as a little alters their natural Signification to accommodate them to represent some divine and supernatural Mysteries Thus for Example A Person signifies a reasonable understanding Being which actually subsists and is distinguished from all other Beings of the same kind but then it signifies more than this not only a distinct but a separate Subsistence for so all created Persons are not only distinct but separate Beings who have a compleat absolute independant Subsistence of their own But when we use this Word Person in a Theological Sense as applied to Father Son and Holy Ghost in the ever-blessed Trinity we only use it in the sense of distinction not of separation to signifie that each of these Holy Three has
the Son though they have the very same Nature yet subsist in a very different manner the Father as Original Mind the Son as the perfect living substantial Image of the Father which is as different as the Subsistence of the Prototype and the Image and every one will grant that a Man and his Image though it were a living substantial Image have a very different Subsistence for the Image has its whole Subsistence in dependance on its Prototype the Man subsists by himself and gives Subsistence to his Image and the same we must conceive of the Subsistence of the Holy Spirit though we have not so apt a Similitude to represent it by And if we must call the Three in the Holy Trinity by any other Name than Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Subsistences is liable to the least Cavil and does most properly express their general Character for they are but One Divinity or One Divine Nature subsisting wholly and entirely Three times without multiplication as a Man is not multiplied but repeated in his Image All other Names in their proper and usual Sence signifie an absolute compleat independent Being such as Nature Essence Substance God And therefore though each Divine Person have a natural essential substantial Subsistence and be true and real God yet we must not say that there are Three Divine Natures Essences Substances or Three Gods because though the whole Divine Nature Essence subsists in Three yet it is but one and the same in all and tho' God be the most absolute compleat independant Being and the Son be God and the Holy Ghost God yet neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost can be said to be an absolute compleat independant God because Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God neither of which subsist absolutely compleatly independently that is without each other which is all that is meant by an absolute compleat independent Subsistence that they can subsist apart without each other but the Father can no more subsist without the Son than the Son without the Father nor the Holy Spirit without Father and Son nor Father and Son without the Holy Spirit as a natural and necessary Image cannot subsist without its Prototype nor the Prototype without its Image which is essential to it so that they are but One absolute compleat independent Deity though the Three Divine Subsistences in the Godhead subsist in a mutual respect and a relative dependance on each other And this I suppose is what the Schools mean when they call the Three Divine Persons Three Relations or Three Relatives for there must be Three real subsisting Relatives if there be Three Relations for One Subsistence cannot be the Subject of Three Relations no more than one and the same Man can be related to himself as Father and Son But then the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are such Relations as there is no Example of in created Nature for their Relation to each other is not a meer external Respect and Denomination such as absolute independant Beings have to each other but their very Nature and Subsistence as Father Son and Holy Ghost is relative Though the Father be eternal original Mind yet it is essential to this eternal Mind to beget his own living substantial Image and therefore this eternal Mind is naturally and essentially related to his Image And I need not tell you that the very Nature and Subsistence of an Image is wholly relative a natural and essential Image subsists as necessarily as the Prototype but its Nature is wholly relative Thus Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same common Nature not common as a generical or specifick Nature which is only a logical Notion but as One individual Nature really and actually subsisting in each without any other difference than their different manner of Subsistence and their different Relations as a Man and his living Image have the same individual Nature common to both and differ only in their manner of Subsistence and Relations that is as the Prototype and its living Image differ And this I think gives us an intelligible account of a Trinity in Unity in the most Orthodox Language of Fathers and Schools This shews us that the Son and Holy Spirit are not Divine Emanations from the Father as is represented in the Platonick Triad For though the eternal Generation and Procession be such Mysteries as we cannot comprehend nor frame any Idea or Conception of yet we know that an Image is not an Emanation but a Reflextion and therefore is wholly and entirely the same with the Prototype which no Emanation can be for the whole cannot be an Emanation An Emanation indeed is of the same Substance and is specifically the same and in this Sence Homoousios but it multiplies Natures and Substances and is not individually and identically the same as the Prototype and its Image and therefore the Fathers declare That the eternal Generation of the Son is not by Abscission and Passion but think the aptest Representation of it in Nature though that is very different is by Splendor and Brightness or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the out-shining of the Deity and when they call the Holy Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not in the Sence of Emanation but of the mysterious Procession This also shews us That this Holy Trinity is not Three Divine Attributes such as Wisdom Power and Goodness for they are all Three the very same with each other the same Wisdom Goodness and Power and therefore not Three Parts or Attributes of the same Deity but each is the whole as a Prototype and its living Image is And this shews That though the Son be true and perfect God as the Father is yet the Son can never be a Father because his Nature and Subsistence as a Son is wholly relative and a Son whose Nature and Subsistence is relative is necessarily and essentially a Son but can never be a Father no more than the Image can beget its Prototype And this gives a plain Account why our Saviour calls God not only his Father but his God and the only true God and acknowledges That he receives all from his Father and That his Father is greater than he is though he have the very same Nature and with respect to his Nature is equal in Power and Glory for this is the true difference between the Prototype and the Image though their Nature be the same Had a Man a living substantial Image perfectly the same with himself as God has the Image must thus speak of his Prototype as the Son of God speaks of his Father He must acknowledge that the Prototype is his Man for he is only the Image of the Man and were there only One Man in the World as there is but One God he must acknowledge the Prototype to be the only true Man for though the living Image would be a true Man also yet he is not originally Man but Man of Man a Man only by
were not unius Substantiae of one and the same Substance as St. Austin and all the Fathers assert because they are Two distinct Men and each of them has a distinct Nature of his own Or if he will call this a Difference as if to differ in number and in Substance or Nature were the same thing or as if to differ in number proved a diversity of Nature too It is a tedious thing to dispute with Men who must be taught to construe the Fathers and to understand common Sence But if Authority will not do this he is resolved Reason shall and he has as peculiar a Talent at Reason as he has at Authorities He proves That the Three Persons can't be Three distinct Minds because they are not Three distinct Substances Now the Dean may very safely deny this Consequence and try how the Animadverter will prove it That if Three Minds are Three intelligent Persons and a Mind is a Substance therefore Three distinct Minds or Persons are Three distinct Substances for Three distinct Minds may subsist distinctly and yet inseparably in One Eternal and infinite Substance as Three intelligent Persons do Though the true and short Answer is That the same Substance repeated in Three distinct Subsistences is not Three Substances but One as I have often observed in the Case of the Man and his Image But suppose Three Persons were Three distinct Substances inseparably united in One What then What then It is a Terrible then For then Two Substances will concur in and belong to each Person to wit that Substance which is the Divine Essence and so is communicable or common to all the Persons and the Substance which constitutes each Person and thereby is so peculiar to him as to distinguish him from the other and consequently to be incommunicable to any besides him to whom it belongs I am heartily ashamed and sorry to see such Stuff as must necessarily expose our Holy Faith to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels and that I may not contribute to it all this Nonsence shall escape the lash of my Pen. In short the Dean knows no Divine Substance or Essence distinct from the Three Divine Persons nor knows any distinction between the Divine Essence and a Divine Person but that the Essence makes the Person That the whole Divine Essence or Nature is originally in God the Father that this same whole Divine Nature and Essence was by eternal Generation communicated by the Father to the Son and subsists distinctly in him That this same whole Divine Nature by eternal Procession is communicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost and subsists distinctly in him and these Three Divine Persons by an inseparable Union dwelling in each other is that Supream and Sovereign Being who is the One God or a Trinity in Unity It is amazing to think what strange Conceits this Man must have of a Trinity of Persons and Unity of Essence or Substance For I am sure no Man has any Idea of an intelligent Nature and Essence distinguished from a Person or of Persons distinguished from a rational Nature of a Divine Essence and Substance which is no Person and of Divine Persons which are no Substances as it seems they cannot be in the Animadverter's way unless he also will compound every Person of Two Substances What is the Divine Essence and Substance but an infinite and eternal Mind And is not an infinite and eternal Mind a Person The Divine Essence then must be acknowledged to be a Person and to be a substantial Person or the Divine Substance so that there is a Person that is a Substance and if there be but One such single and solitary Divine Essence there can be but One such single and solitary Person Will he then make four Persons in the Godhead the Divine Essence which is a substantial Person and Three Persons which are no Substances Or will he own God to be what Pascentius objected to St. Austin and he rejected with Scorn Triformis Persona One Divine Person under Three Forms this or something more Senceless is the Truth of the Case as may appear more hereafter but I will now proceed 3. His third Argument is this If it be truly said that one and the same infinite Mind or Spirit is Father Son and Holy Ghost I mean all Three taken together and it cannot be truly said that one and the same infinite Mind or Spirit is Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits then it follows that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits This Logick is a very troublesome thing when Men want Sence The whole of this Argument is this That One infinite Mind can't be Three infinite Minds nor Three infinite Minds One infinite Mind and that Three Persons who are One infinite Mind can't be Three infinite Minds that is That Three can't be One nor One Three which if it be universally true there is an end of a Trinity in Unity if it be not universally true that is if Three may be One and One Three the meer opposition between Three and One which is the whole force of his Argument is childish Sophistry For if they be Three and One in different Respects this is no Contradiction Every Divine Person is an infinite Mind and as distinctly so as he is a distinct Person and yet by their essential and inseparable Union to each other all Three are but One eternal infinite Mind as they are but One God But when these Three Divine Persons are said to be Three and to be One eternal and infinite Mind they are Three and One Mind upon different Respects every Person by himself as a distinct Person is an eternal infinite Mind that is is a knowing intelligent Being and has all the Perfections of an infinite Understanding distinguished from the other Persons by Self-consciousness and all Three Persons by their inseparable Union to each other are but One eternal infinite Mind as having each other in themselves by Mutual-consciousness and let the Animadverter shew where the Contradiction is That there should be Three Self-conscious infinite Minds as there are Three infinite Persons united into One mutualconscious Mind as Three distinct Persons are united in the Unity of the Godhead especially when this One eternal Mind is entirely and perfectly repeated without the least change in Three eternal intelligent Subsistences each of which is distinctly an eternal Mind but the same One individual eternal Mind 4. His fourth and last Argument is this Whatsoever Attribute may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in the Athanasian Form so belongs to them all in common that it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest But the attribute infinite Mind or Spirit may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in and according to the Athanasian Form And therefore it can belong to none of them under any Term
own Nature But yet we must not say nor did they intend it so That the Unity of Nature between Father and Son and Holy Spirit is a meer specifick Sameness For we must not make the Divine Nature a Species which is common to more Individuals for then the Unity of the Divine Nature is no more than a Logical Notion which is the only Unity of a Specifick Nature whereas God is essentially and numerically one The Three Divine Persons are not individuals of the same Nature for then they must have Three individual subsisting Divine Natures which would as much make Three Gods as Three individual subsisting Humane Natures make Three Men The Divine Nature would then be communicated by Multiplication as Humane Nature is which must multiply Gods as well as Men. Is this Sameness of Nature then one single or singular Nature which has but one single Subsistence This the Fathers utterly deny as being the Heresie of Sabellius and leaving no other Trinity of Persons in the Godhead but a Trinity of Names The Divine Nature is One Individual Nature as you shall hear presently but not One Single Nature for one Single Nature can be but One Person whether in God or Man I shall not dispute this at large now I may find a properer place for it but I shall only observe at present That if there be but One only single Nature in God the whole Trinity must be Incarnate in the Incarnation of Christ as Sabellius asserted For the Divine Nature was Incarnate in Christ he was perfect God and perfect Man and if there was but one single subsisting Nature in all Three Persons this one single Divine Nature was Incarnate and therefore the Father and the Holy Ghost who are this one single Divine Nature as well as the Son must be as much Incarnate as the Son was for though it were possible to conceive Three Divine Persons in One single Divine Nature yet it is absolutely impossible that this One single Nature should be incarnate and not the Divine Nature of all the Three Persons be incarnate when it is but One single Nature in all And it is absurd to say that the One Divine Nature of Father Son and Holy Ghost is incarnate and yet none but the Son incarnate This is what Victorinus Afer teaches Non oportet dicere nec fas est dicere unam esse Substantiam tres esse Personas si enim ista ipsa Substantia egit omnia passa est patripassiani nos absit Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. We ought not says he to say nor is it lawful to say that there is but One Substance that is One single subsisting Nature and Three Persons for if this same Substance did and suffered all we also must be Patripassians which God forbid That is we must say That the Father suffered as well as the Son as Sabellius taught It is such Animadversions and such unintelligible Notions which make the Christian Faith ridiculed by Atheists and Hereticks But the great difficulty is how to conceive One Individual Nature which is numerically One but is not One single Nature And yet thus it must be if there be a Trinity in Unity Three real Hypostases and Subsistences in One Divine Nature which the Counterfeit Areopagite but an ancient and learned Writer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Monad or Unite which thrice subsists or has Three Subsistences whereas it is demonstrable That One single Nature can subsist but once or have but One Subsistence And therefore the ancient Fathers owned that Father and Son is alius alius and that God is solus but non solitarius That I may be the better understood and give you some imperfect Conception of this great and venerable Mystery let us contemplate this individual Identity and Sameness of Nature in a Man and his Image A Man sees his own Image in a Glass the exact Proportion of his Body all the Lines and Features in his Face all his own Motions and Postures whether he smiles or cries sits or stands Now suppose this were a real living Image as exactly himself both in Body and Mind as the Image in the Glass represents his external Shape and Features That this living Image was coeval with himself and did subsist as necessarily as he did and yet as much depend upon him as the Image in the Glass does on his Face and Presence That this Living Image did understand and will in the same Act with himself and repeat all his Motions and Passions and Sensations as his Face in the Glass does That this living Image knew himself to be but an Image distinct from the Original but the same with him and that the Man whose Image it is knew himself to be distinct from his Image but yet the same and that the Man and his living Image felt each other and all that is in each other in themselves Now I desire to know by what Name you would call such a living Image You cannot deny him to be a Man because he has Humane Nature in himself and distinctly in himself as compleatly and perfectly as the Man has whose Image he is or else he were not a compleat and perfect Image And yet you cannot say that he is a distinct Man or another Man a Second Man for he is but an Image and the very same with the Original and therefore they are both but One Man naturally One not as Two other Men are who may be morally One by a Consent and Agreement of Understanding and Will but by an individual Unity and Sameness of Nature and Will And yet you must confess them to be Two though not Two Men not Two Humane Natures for the Man is not his Image nor the Image the Man whose Image he is But if you will call the Man a Person as certainly every Man is a Person then his Image which is the same with himself must be a Person too and not the same Person So that here are Two distinct Persons subsisting in One Individual Nature not multiplied but repeated in its Image There is indeed no such living Image as this in created Nature but yet this is the true Nature of any Image and gives us an intelligible Conception of the Unity of Nature in a plurality of Persons And this is the plain account of the essential Unity between God the Father and God the Son Christ is expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and Col. 1. 15. and said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Form of God Phil. 2. 6. and to be the brightness of his Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the express Character and Image of his Person And because there are several sorts of Images the ancient Fathers declare what kind of Image Christ is of God the Father That he is not a dead Picture nor a meer Reflection in a Glass but is a living Image of the living God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
intelligent Subsistences without Mutual-consciousness and there can be no Mutual-consciousness but in the same individual Nature but yet if we must distinguish as far as we can apprehend these matters Mutual-consciousness is much more essential to the Unity of Three intelligent Subsistences than any other Notion of Unity For I cannot see but that if it were possible That three created Spirits who are not only Three distinct Subsistences but have Three particular separate Natures should be thus united by Mutual-consciousness it would destroy the individuation of their Natures though the individuation of their Subsistences or Persons would be preserved by Self-consciousness And were it possible the same individual Nature should be repeated in its Image without this Mutual-consciousness it would divide this One Nature and make the Man and his living Image as much Two Men as any Two Men in the World But then the Image would cease to be an Image how exact soever upon other Accounts the Likeness or Sameness were for the Image does not only represent and resemble the Prototype but moves and acts with it And this is that very Mutual-consciousness wherein the Dean places the essential and numerical Unity of the Holy Trinity such a Mutual-consciousness as must be between the Prototype and its living Image I shall not trouble you with transcribing out of the Vindication but referr you to some places to consult at your leisure He always represents the Son as the living Substantial Image of God the Father and the eternal Generation by God's reflex Knowledge of himself and in this places the numerical Identity and Sameness of Nature between Father and Son as there is between the Prototype and its Image and the Holy Spirit whom the Fathers represent as God's eternal Love of himself in his own Image has all the same Divine Perfections repeated in eternal and substanstial Love That yet this numerical Identity and Unity of Nature cannot be understood without this Mutual-consciousness which makes them One Energy and Power and is their mutual In-being in each other That this Mutual-consciousness proves the perfect equality of all Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead as having the very same Perfections without destroying the Prerogative of the Father or the Subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit As a living Image is in Nature equal with the Prototype but Subordinate That this gives an Account of the Modi subsistendi or of the real and actual Subsistence of the same individual numerical Nature in Three but in a different manner had these things been duly considered and compared we should not have heard so much noise and clamour about Mutual-consciousness as if it made Three absolute compleat independent Gods when it is impossible to conceive a more close and intimate Union in Nature But there is one formidable Objection against all this or rather against the Dean for it that he pretends by this means to make the Notion of a Trinity in Unity as intelligible as the Notion of God which is intolerable Vanity and Presumption to pretend to explain Mysteries But does the Dean pretend That his Explication leaves nothing Mysterious in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Nothing which we cannot comprehend That as the Ancients used to speak this is no longer a wonderful distinction and a wonderful Union This I confess had been very vain and presumptuous But are there no Mysteries in the Divine Nature because the Notion of One God is an intelligible Notion If there be there may be Mysteries very incomprehensible Mysteries in the Trinity still how intelligible soever the Notion be The intelligibleness of any Notion whether it be true or false consists in the terms in which it is conceived that they convey a distinct Idea to our Minds of something possible not which we can fully comprehend but which we can understand without confusion or contradiction and this does great Service to Religion to deliver Mysteries from absurdity and contradiction though they are very incomprehensible still The Notion of Eternity for Example is very Intelligible to be without any Cause without Beginning and without End there is no contradiction in this and it is demonstrable that something must be Eternal and yet nothing can be more incomprehensible than Eternity Our Thoughts are presently lost when we endeavour to conceive an eternal Being And thus an eternal Image of an eternal Being begotten without Beginning is as intelligible as an eternal Being is for if it be necessary and essential to an eternal Being to have a living substantial Image thought can't divide their Existence and it is as certain if there be such an eternal living Image that this eternal Being and his eternal Image are Two as the Prototype and the Image and yet as essentially One and as intimately conscious to each other as you have heard they must necessarily be this is intelligible but yet a very incomprehensible Mystery for who can conceive an eternal Generation which has no beginning the Divine Nature repeated in its Image without multiplication a Distinction without Separation and an Unity without Singularity and without Confusion If these be not Mysteries enow for the Animadverter though the Dean's intelligible Notion were admitted he is as much too fond of Mysteries as other Men are too much afraid of them for whether he knows it or no there is a very great difference between a Mystery and Contradiction or Nonsence I believe by this time you are less Fond than you were of an Answer to the Animadverter's Arguments which some Men who have despised his Wit and Railery have yet thought unanswerable but I will be as good as my Word especially since a short Answer will serve In his third Chapter he Attacks the Dean's Notion of Self-consciousness but he stumbles at the Threshold and runs on furiously as a Man does who runs headlong and is never able to recover himself He says It is evident the Dean assigns Self-consciousness as the formal reason of Personality in all Persons universally whether Finite or Infinite Create or uncreate and therefore he undertakes to prove That Self-consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality either in Finite or Infinite Persons The Dean says not one word about the formal Reason of Personality nor is at all concern'd what it is He only says That the Unity of a Spirit with it self and its distinct and separate Subsistence from all oher created Spirits consists in Self-consciousness So that if that be one distinct separate Mind which is conscious only to it self which feels all that is in it self and nothing else and those be two distinct separate Minds each of which is thus conscious to it self but not to each other the Dean has gained his Point and the Animadverter has lost all his Arguments and Wit whatever becomes of the formal Reason of Personality The Dean did not enquire what makes a Mind or Spirit or if you please a Person
all the Perfections of infinite Mind and Understanding distinctly as other Persons have but not separately as created Persons have And since there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead thus really distinguished from each other without a separation I know no reason why we may not use this Word Person in this limited Sence to signifie Three who are as really distinct from each other but not separated as other Persons are For when it is known in what sence we use the Word when applied to the Trinity it is trifling to dispute against Three Persons in the Godhead from the signification of the Word Person when applied to Creatures and yet this is the Sum total of all the Socinian Arguments against Three Persons and One God and of all the Contradictions they pretend to find in it Three Divine Persons they say must be Three absolute compleat independent Gods because Three Humane Persons are Three compleat absolute Men who subsist independently on each other and therefore it is as manifest a Contradiction That Three Divine Persons should be but One God as it is that Three Humane Persons should be but One Man which signifies nothing if we do not use the Word Person in the same Sense and all the World knows we do not when applied to the Holy Trinity as when applied to Men For it is meer trifling to dispute against us from such a Sense of the Word as we reject and declare to all Men that we do reject The most that can be made of this is that we use an improper Word and ought not to call Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons because that is to make Three Gods of them as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men But when the importunity of Hereticks forces us to find Names for that which nothing in created Nature can answer if they will not give us leave we must take leave to use the properest Names we can find though not every way proper and such the Name of Person is when applied to the Persons of the Trinity For all that this Word Person signifies except a separate Subsistence belongs to the Persons of the Holy Trinity An intelligent Nature and all personal Acts of Understanding Volition c. do as distinctly belong to each Person as to any Humane Persons and it is this makes a Person not a separate Subsistence which belongs only to finite and created not to infinite and eternal Persons And therefore the Word Person is properly enough applied to the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all that is essential to the Notion of a Person belongs to each of them though they do not subsist separately as Humane Persons do But yet Men are very apt to judge of the Divine Persons by what they see in Humane Persons and to fancy these Three Persons in the Deity to be like Three Men who have the same Humane Nature but subsist and act separately and are One only by a moral Consent and Unity And therefore to prevent this Imagination which betrays Men to down right Tritheism others without rejecting the Name Person have thought fit more expresly to signifie what kind of Persons they are by calling them Three Subsistences that is Three who have all the Perfections of the Godhead and do really and distinctly subsist for else they could not be Three Subsistences but yet do not subsist as separate Persons but are essentially One God For Subsistence does not necessarily infer Separation for Three may distinctly subsist though essentially and inseparably united And this is the difference between Person and Subsistence that according to the most usual acceptation of the Word Person which it is hard to correct for that Idea which in common use belongs to a Word is apt to stick close to it Three Persons signifie Three who subsist apart and as separately as Three Men do But Three Subsistences are Three Persons who subsist distinctly without Separation For Subsistence necessarily signifies a distinct and real but not a separate Subsistence for if Three really subsist without a Separation they are Three real Subsistences and therefore it is in vain for the Socinians to dispute against Three Persons that they must be Three separate Persons unless they can prove that they cannot really subsist without a Separation which none of them ever yet undertook and yet all their Talk of Contradictions and Three Gods vanishes without it What I have said of the Word Person is with equal reason applicable to the Word Mind The Animadverter objects against the Dean That a Mind or Spirit is an absolute Being Nature or Substance and I grant it is so in the common use of the Word as apapplied to created Minds and Spirits but so is Person also as much as Mind and if we allow of a Theological use of the Word Person why not of Mind too to signifie an intelligent Subsistence which is a Mind too but not a separate Mind and therefore not such an absolute Being Nature and Substance as a created Mind is And when the Dean speaks of Three distinct infinite Minds which are essentially and inseparably One he could mean nothing more than three distinct intelligent but not separate Subsistences And he needs ask no other Pardon but for the use of a Word which the Schools have not consecrated But there is greater want of Words to express the Unity and Oneness of the Divine Nature and Essence than the distinction of Persons The Nicene Fathers in their Controversie with Arius of which if there be occasion more hereafter who denied the Divinity of Christ and made him no more than a Creature though as perfect and as like to God as a Creature could be used the Word Homoousion which was not first invented by them to serve that turn but was used either in Words or Sence by the Anti-Nicene Fathers as the learned Dr. Bull has proved But what is this Homoousion or Sameness of Nature This is the difficulty for there is not any one Word to explain it by which adequately answers the full Notion of the Divine Unity and that is no great wonder because there is no perfect Example in Nature of any such Unity They very often explain this by Examples of a Specifick Unity That the Father and Son have the same Nature as Abraham and Isaac have and therefore they call Men who have the same Specifick Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they do the Sun its Light and Splendor the Tree and its Branches c. And this is in part a true representation of the Homoousiotes or Sameness of Nature in the Persons of the Holy Trinity for if there be not that which perfectly Answers though it much out-does also a specifick Sameness and Unity their Nature cannot be the same and accordingly they prove against the Arians that Christ cannot be the Son of God if he be not Homoousios to his Father because every Father begets a Son in his