be but One God but yet requires us to believe his Eternal Son to be true and perfect God and his Eternal Spirit to be true and perfect God it is certain that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is very reconcilable with the Unity of God For as far as Revelation must decide this Dispute we are as much obliged to believe That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God as we are to believe That there is but One God Those who will not acquiesce in this must appeal from Scripture to Natural Reason which is a very absurd and impudent Appeal for the plain sense of it is this That they will believe their own Reason before the Scriptures in matters relating to the Divine Nature and Unity which all wise men acknowledge to be so much above human comprehension That is That they know the Unity of God better than God himself does or which is the same thing That they will never believe any Revelation to come from God or any thing how express soever the words are to be the meaning of the Revelation any farther than their own Reason approves it Of which more elsewhere And yet I dare appeal to any man of a free and unbiass'd Reason in this Cause What is that Natural Notion we have of One God Is it any thing more than that there is and can be but One Eternal Self-originated Being who is the Principle or Cause of all other Beings And does not the Scripture do not all Trinitarians with the whole Catholick Church own this Do not all the Christian Creeds teach us to profess our Faith in One God the Father from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their Godhead Thus far then Scripture and Reason and the Catholick Faith agree Does Reason then deny that God can beget of himself an Eternal Son his own perfect Image and Likeness If it does then indeed Scripture and Reason contradict each other But I believe these men will not pretend to prove from Reason That God could not beget an Eternal Son and if this cannot be proved by Reason as I am certain it never can then Reason does not contradict Scripture which teaches us that God has an only begotten Son And if God have an only begotten Son Reason will teach us that the Son of God must be True and Perfect God and yet not another God because he has one and the same Nature with his Father This is all that any Christian need to believe concerning this matter and all this every Christian may understand and all this every one who sincerely believes the Faith of the Holy Trinity does and must agree in Those who do not I will at any time undertake to prove to be secret Hereticks and Enemies to the Christian Faith and as for those who do I will never dispute with them about some Terms of Art and the Propriety of Words in a matter which is so much above all words and forms of speech And here I leave this matter upon a sure Bottom and here we are ready to join Issue with our Socinian Adversaries Our only Controversy as to the Doctrine of the Trinity with them is Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit each of them be True and Perfect God If we can prove this which has been the Faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages we need dispute no other matters with them nor can any Disputes among our selves give any Support to their Cause A Dispute about Words may look like a difference in Faith when both contending Parties may mean the same thing as those must do who sincerely own and believe That the Son is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost is True and Perfect God and that neither of them are the Father nor each other And therefore those different Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity which the Socinians of late have so much triumphed in and made more and greater than really they are and more sensless too by their false Representations can do them no real service among Wise Men tho it may help to amuse the Ignorant If any men have subtilly distinguished away the Catholick Faith they may take them to themselves and increase their Party by them But if this were the Case as I hope it is not it is no Objection against the Catholick Faith that some men openly oppose it and others at least in some mens opinions do secretly undermine it There is reason to guard the Christian Faith against all inconvenient or dangerous Explications which seem to approach near Heresy if this be done with due Christian Temper and Moderation but I hope the Disputes of the Trinitarians are not so irreconcilable but that they will all unite against a Pestilent and Insolent Heresy which now promises it self glorious Successes only from their private Quarrels CHAP. II. An Examination of Some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy BEfore I put an end to this Discourse it will contribute very much to the better understanding of what I have said and give a clearer Notion of the Use of it to apply these Principles to the Examination of a late Treatise entituled Some Considerations concerning the Trinity The Author I know not he writes with Temper and though he takes the liberty to find fault he does it Civilly and therefore he ought to meet with Civil Usage and so he shall from me as far as the bare Censure of his Principles will admit I was I confess startled at the first entrance to find him own the Vncertainty of our Faith in these Points concerning the Trinity for if after the most perfect Revelation of the Gospel that we must ever expect and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for above Sixteen Hundred years this Faith is still uncertain it is time to leave off all Enquiries about it As for the many absurd and blasphemous Expositions that have been made of this Doctrine if by them he means the Ancient Heresies which infested the Church they are so far from rendring our Faith uncertain that as I shall shew him anon the very Condemnation of those Heresies by the Catholick Church gives us a more certain account what the true Catholick Faith was I agree with him that the warm and indiscreet Management of contrary Parties has been to the Prejudice of Religion among unthinking people who hence conclude the uncertainty of our Faith and it concerns good men to remove this Prejudice by distinguishing the Catholick Faith from the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Words and the Catholick Sense of them and I hope I have made it appear this may be done and then the Faith is secure notwithstanding these Disputes and as for any other Offence or Scandal let those look to it who either give or take it This Considerer dislikes all the Ways and Methods which have hitherto been taken to compose these Disputes 1. He
have distinct Understandings Wills and Powers of Action for no other Beings are capable of sending or being sent and Three such distinct Persons each of which is complete and perfect God is the Trinity asserted by the Catholick Fathers in contradiction to the Heresy of Sabellius But there is one very good Rule of Athanasius which is worth observing in this Controversy That we must not imagine to find the Unity of the Godhead by denying Three but we must find this Unity or Monade in Three The Sabellians took the first way to secure the Catholick Faith of One God they denied Three real distinct substantial Persons in the Godhead but the Catholick Faith owns Three real distinct substantial divine Persons and teaches that these Three are One God not with such an Unity as belongs to One Person but as Three Persons are One God which should be a warning to some late Writers who think they cannot sufficiently defend the Unity of God without opposing a real and substantial Trinity which is to oppose the ancient Catholick Faith To conclude this Chapter the result of the whole in short is this That in opposition to the Noetians who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three Names of the same One Divine Person whom we call God the Catholick Fathers asserted that they were Three distinct Persons not the same Person under Three Names or Three Appearances in opposition to those Sabellians who denied the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but made the Son like the Word in the mind or heart of man which had no substantial permanent Subsistence of its own and the Holy Ghost in like manner to be a transient efflux of Power from God so that God the Father was the only subsisting Person and the One God but the Son and the Holy Ghost the insubstantial transient Word and Power of God These ancient Fathers in like manner asserted the Substantiality of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that they were real distinct subsisting Persons as true and perfect Persons as the Father himself is in opposition to those Sabellians who asserted a compound Deity and made a Trinity of Parts instead of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead they unanimously rejected all composition in the Deity and asserted each Person distinctly by himself not to be a part of God but true and perfect God Now had these Fathers asserted nothing positively concerning the Three Divine Persons but only rejected these Noetian and Sabellian Heresies it had been evidence enough what their Faith was concerning the Ever-blessed Trinity for remove these Heresies and all such as are manifestly the same however they may differ in words and there is nothing left for any man to believe concerning a Divine Trinity but the true Catholick Faith of Three real distinct substantial Divine Persons each of which is distinctly and by himself complete entire perfect God For if Father Son and Holy Ghost are not one and the same Person distinguisht only by Three Names according to their different Appearances and Operations nor one single Person with two personal Vertues and Powers called the Son and the Spirit like the word and emotion in a man's heart which is no person and has no subsistence of its own nor three parts of one compounded Deity as a man is compounded of Body Soul and Spirit then of necessity Father Son and Holy Ghost must be Three complete substantial subsisting Persons Thrâ—â— such Persons as the Sabellians would allow but One fâ—â—â—f they â—e not the same nor affections and motions of the â—ame nor parts of the same there is nothing left but to own them Three completely and perfectly subsisting Person If God be One not in the Sabellian â—otion of Singularity as One God signifies One single Person but Oâ—e in Three without parts or composition as the Father asserted against Sabellius then each Person must be by himself complete and perfect God for God cannot be One in Three Persons unless each Person be perfect God for unless this One God be perfect God in each Person he cannot be perfectly One in Three If the Unity of God be not the Unity of a Person it must be the Unity and Sameness of Nature and the inseparable Union of Persons and this is the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity which the Catholick Fathers taught and which is the only thing they could reasonably teach when they had rejected the Sabellian Unity There is no medium that I know of in this Controversy concerning the Unity of God between the Unity of One single Person and that Oneness which results from the Unity and the Consubstantiality of Nature and inseparable Union of Persons and therefore if the first be Heresy the second must be the Catholick Faith and whatever Notions men advance against this is Sabellianism in its Principle and last result for if the Unity of God be not the Union of Three complete Divine Persons each of which is distinctly by himself perfect God it must be the Unity of One Divine Person which is the Sabellian Unity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost IN the last Chapter I have plainly shewn what Sabellianism is and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed and confuted it which is proof enough what they meant by Person when in opposition to Sabellius they taught that there were Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead not Three personal Characters and Relations which Sabellius owned but Three true and proper Persons each of whom is by himself true and perfect God But yet the Nicene Faith of the Homocusion or One Substance of Father and Son is so expounded by some as to countenance the Sabellian Heresy which all the Nicene Fathers condemned though one would think that should be an unanswerable Objection against it this has made it so absolutely necessary to the Vindication of the Catholick Faith and to compose some warm Disputes rightly to understand this matter that I shall carefully inquire what the Nicene Fathers meant by these terms of the Homoousion and One Substance which they have put into their Creed as the most express opposition to the Arian Heresy And we cannot long doubt of this if we consider the true state of the Arian Controversy There was no Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Personality of the Son they both condemned Sabellius and therefore One Substance when opposed to the Arians can't signify a Sabellian Unity The Arians and Sabellians both agreed in this That One God is but One Divine Person who is truly and properly God and that to assert Three Persons each of which is true and perfect God is to make Three Gods The Sabellians to avoid this Tritheism make Father Son and Holy Ghost but One Divine Person and in that sense but One God The Arians on the other hand allow Father and Son to be two real distinct
the better for it An Union of Substances seems to signify some kind of Contact which is hard to conceive between Body and Spirit but however an Union of Contact and an Union of Life are two very different kinds of Union and do not include or infer each other and therefore the true Answer to that Question How Soul and Body are united is not to say That their Substances are united or fastened together which gives us no notion of a Vital Union but that the Soul lives in the Body and gives life to it receives impressions srom it and governs its motions But to inquire farther is to inquire into the Reasons of Natural and Essential Unions which are as great Mysteries as Nature is We may as well ask How a Soul lives as how it animates a Body and God alone knows both So that to inquire after the Natural Nexus or Cement of this Union is nothing at all to the purpose and is not the Object of Human Knowledge Now though the Vital Union between Soul and Body and the Union of mutual Consciousness be of a very different Kind and Nature yet the Dispute about the Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is much the same Consciousness is the Unity of a Spirit Self-consciousness is the Unity of a Person and by the same reason mutual Consciousness is a Natural Union of Three distinct Self-conscious Persons in the Unity of the same Nature And to reject this for want of a Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is as if we should deny the Union of Soul and Body to be an Union of Life or Animation because this don't explain the Natural Nexus between Soul and Body If a Mutual Conscious Union be an Essential Union of Three distinct Persons in the same Nature as a Vital Union is the Essential Union of Soul and Body we have nothing to do in either Case with the Union of Substances which we can know nothing of and if we could should understand these Unions never the better for it For whatever Union of Substance we may suppose between Soul and Body and the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity it is the Kind and Species of Union which gives us the Notion and Idea of it If you inquire what Spirit and what Matter is It would not be thought a good Answer to these Questions to say a Spirit is a Substance and Matter is a Substance without adding their Specifick Differences that a Spirit is an intelligent thinking Substance and Matter is an extended Substance nor is it a better Answer to that Question what Union there is between Soul and Body or between the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity To say That their Substances are united which gives us no distinct Notion of their Union but a Vital Union and a Mutual Conscious Union contain distinct Ideas and if these be Natural and Essential Unions though we know no more of the Union of Substances than we do what Substance is yet we know that the Soul and Body must be one Natural Person and the Three Divine Persons must be naturally and essentially One God for a Natural Union makes One according to the Nature of that Union It is visible enough what has occasioned this Mistake Men consider Mutual Consciousness between Three Compleat Absolute Independent Minds and rightly enough conclude that how conscious soever they were to each other this could not make them essentially One for every compleat Mind is One by it self and not naturally Conscious to any One but it self and by whatever Power they should be so united as to be mutually Conscious this could not make them essentially One they would be Three Mutually Conscious Minds not essentially One Mind for they are not by Nature One nor mutually Conscious and therefore may be parted again and cease to be so But then in this way of stating it the Objection equally lies against the Perichoresis the inseparable Union and In-being of Minds which can never make Three Compleat Absolute Minds essentially One But if we apply this to the Union of Living Subsisting Intelligent Relatives of the same Individual Essence to Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Self-originated Mind its Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Eternal Spirit this Mutual Consciousness gives us the most Intelligible Notion of the Essential and Inseparable Union and In-being of Three in One. I dare not say what other Men can do but I have tried my self and can form no Notion of an Unity in Trinity but what either necessarily includes or ultimately resolves it self into One Natural Essential Consciousness in Three The Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One in Three but we must not understand this Inseparability after the manner of Bodies whose Parts may be divided and separated from each other God is not Body and has no Parts but in the Unity of the Godhead there is Eternal Original Mind an Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit which are inseparable from each other that is can never be parted What then can parting and separating signify in a Mind which has no Parts to be torn and divided from each other I can understand nothing by it but that the Mind does no longer see and know and feel its Word in it self nor the Word the Mind for this would make a perfect Separation between the Mind and its Word that Mind has no Word which does not see and feel it in it self and were it possible that a living subsisting Word should lose all Conscious Sensation of the Mind whose Word it is it would cease to be a Word and commence a perfect separate Mind it self So that as far as we can conceive it the Inseparable Union between Father and Son between Original Infinite Mind and its Eternal Word is an inseparable Conscious Life and Sensation which is such a Natural Demonstration of their Inseparable Union as no other Notion can give us for all Men feel that a Mind and its Word can never be parted a Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind Thus what other possible Notion can we form of the Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of Father and Son as our Saviour tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me which is their Natural and Essential Unity I and my Father are one We all feel how the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word the Mind knows and feels and comprehends its own Word and a perfect living subsisting Word knows and feels that whole Mind whose Word it is in it self for the Word is nothing else but the whole Mind living and subsisting in the Word which is another Hypostasis but perfectly One and the same Nature and therefore as they know themselves so they know and feel each other in themselves As the Father knoweth me saith Christ so know I the Father 10 John 15. And thus to see and know God by an Internal Sensation and to be
Consubstantial Son is a true and real Son for which reason as he observes the Arians would not allow the Son to be Consubstantial because they would not allow him to be a true genuine Son and for this very reason the Nicene Fathers inserted the Homoousion in their Creed But yet if we would rightly conceive of God of Father Son and Holy Ghost of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity we must not form our Notions by the Ideas of Substance and Consubstantiality which we have no distinct conceptions of but we must learn their Unity Distinction and Consubstantiality from those Characters the Scripture gives of Father Son and Holy Ghost This Rule St. Ambrose expressly gives us with reference to the Son and the Reason is the same as to the other Divine Persons If we would avoid Error says that Father let us attend to those Characters the Scripture gives us to help us to understand what and who the Son is He is called the Word the Son the Power of God the Wisdom of God all this we can understand and not only St. Ambrose but all the other Catholick Fathers as I have already shewn prove the Consubstantiality Coeternity Coequality Unity and Distinction of Father and Son from these Names and Characters which they understood in a true and proper sense for a Living Subsisting Son and Word and Power and Wisdom and there is no difficulty in conceiving all this if we contemplate it in these Characters nay it is impossible to conceive otherwise of it As impossible as it is to form any notion at all of those Philosophical Terms whereby this Mystery is commonly represented when we abstract them from those sensible Characters and Ideas which the Scripture has given us and begin our Inquiries with them It will be of great use to represent this matter plainly that every man may see what it is that obscures and perplexes the Doctrine of the Trinity and confounds mens notions about it to the great scandal of the Christian Religion and the disturbance of the Christian Church The great difficulty concerns the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity that they are really and distinctly Three and essentially One And this is represented by One Nature Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases and yet Hypostasis signifies Substance and every Divine Hypostasis is the whole Divine Essence and Substance Now if we immediately contemplate this Mystery under the notion of Substance it is impossible for us to conceive One Substance and Three Hypostases that is in some sense Three Substances or which is all One as to the difficulty of conceiving it though the form of Expression is more Catholick Three each of which is the whole Essence and Substance and neither of them is each other we may turn over our Minds as long as we please and change Words and Phrases but we can find no Idea to answer these or any other words of this nature But now if instead of Essence and Hypostasis we put Mind and its Word we can form a very intelligible notion of this Unity and Distinction and prove that Unity of Substance and Distinction of Hypostases which we cannot immediately and directly form any notion of For Eternal Original Mind and its Living Subsisting Word are certainly Two and neither are nor can be each other the Mind cannot be its own Living Word nor the Word the Mind whose Word it is and yet we must all grant that Eternal Mind is the most Real Being Essence Substance and that a Living Subsisting Word is Life Being Substance and the very same Life and Substance that the Mind is and all that the Mind is for a perfect Living Word can have no other Life and Substance but that of the Mind and must be all the same that the Mind is The Eternal Generation of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father Life of Life Substance of Substance Whole of Whole is impossible to be conceived as immediately applied to the notion of Substance but the Generation of the Word Whole of Whole is very conceivable for the Mind must beget its own Word as we feel in our selves and a Mind which is perfect Life and Substance if it begets its Word must beget a Living Subsisting Substantial Word the perfect Image of its own Life and Substance And as impossible as it is to conceive much more to express in words this Mystery of the Eternal Generation yet the necessary relation between a Mind and its Word proves that thus it is we feel it in our selves though we are as perfectly ignorant how our Mind begets its dying vanishing Word as how the Eternal Mind begets an Eternal Living Subsisting Word And the Generation of the Word includes in it all the Properties of the Divine Generation that it is Eternal for an Eternal Mind can never be without its Word that it is without any Corporeal Passions or Esslux or Division begotten in the Mind and inseparable from it Now if we conceive after the same manner of the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit can any man deny this to be an Intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity though we can form no distinct Idea of One Essence and Substance and Three Hypostases For if we can conceive Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Original Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit to be Essentially One and Three the Catholick Faith is secured though we do not so well understand the distinction between those Abstract Metaphysical Terms of Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis especially when applied to the Unity and Distinction of the Eternal Godhead which is above all Terms of Art The Catholick Faith is That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God but yet there are not Three Gods but One God and this the Doctrine of the Divine Relations gives us a very intelligible notion of for we cannot conceive otherwise of the Eternal Mind its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit but that each of them are True and Perfect God and yet a Mind its Word and Spirit can be but One and therefore but One God But One Substance and Three Hypostases is but a secondary notion of a Trinity in Unity to secure the Catholick Faith against the Sabellian and Arian Heresies Against the Sabellians the Catholick Fathers asserted Three Hypostases against the Arians One Substance and the Essential Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove both the One Substance and Three Hypostases but though One Substance and Three Hypostases be the Catholick Language yet those Men begin at the wrong end who think to form an intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity from these abstract Metaphysical Terms This is not the Language of the Scripture nor have we any Idea to answer these Terms of One Substance in Three distinct Hypostases when we consider them by themselves without relation to the Divine Nature to which alone these
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
and thus a Man begets a Man in his own Nature and Likeness and the Son which is begotten is upon all accounts as much a Man as he who begets and Father and Son are two Men And to beget and to be begotten tho they prove their Persons to be distinct yet are but External Relations not different manners of subsistence in the same Nature And thus God does not beget a Son which would be to beget a Second God For to beget and to be begotten when he who begets begets in an absolute sense all the same that he is himself makes two of the same kind And therefore we must observe That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Character and Property of the Father does not only signify that he has no cause of his Being and Nature but that what he is he is absolutely in himself has an Absolute not a Relative Nature and Subsistence and so consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Personal Property of the Son signifies that his Being and Nature is Relative not only that he receives his Being and Nature from his Father but that he so receives it as to be a Relative Subsistence in his Father's Nature and the like may be said of the Procession of the Holy Ghost As to shew this more particularly God begets a Son his own perfect Image and Likeness but he does not beget his own Absolute Nature in his Son as Man does though he begets his Son of his own Nature and Substance as for instance God is Perfect Absolute Original Mind not only as Original is opposed to what has a Cause and a Beginning but as opposed to an Image but God does not beget an Absolute Original Mind in his Son but only his own Eternal Essential Word which is the Perfect Living Image of Eternal Self-originated Mind and is it self Eternal Infinite Mind in the Eternal Word but is in its own proper Character the Eternal Word of the Eternal Mind not originally an Eternal Mind it self It has all the Perfections of an Eternal Mind as a Perfect Word must of necessity have which is the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature but it has all these Perfections not as Original Mind but as a Begotten Word which is a different Mode of Subsistence and a sensible distinction between the Eternal Mind and its Word in the perfect Identity of Nature This I take to be a True and Intelligible Account of these different manners of Subsistence which distinguish the Divine Persons in the perfect Unity of Nature that they have all the same Nature and same Perfections but after a different manner which can never be understood in Absolute Natures and Persons for three Men though Father Son and Grandson have all of them Human Nature after the very same manner but in an Absolute Nature and Relative Essential Processions this is to be understood and proves a real distinction and perfect Unity It is evident to all Men that the Mind and its Word are Two and it is as evident that Life Wisdom Knowledge are in Absolute Original Mind after another manner than they are in its Word and yet the very Notion of a Mind and its Word and that Essential Relation that is between them makes it a contradiction to say that any other Life Wisdom Knowledge can be in the Word than what is in the Mind which would be to say That the Word is not the Word of the Mind if it have any thing that is not in the Mind For a Natural Word can have nothing but what is in the Mind and is no farther a Word than it is the Natural Image of the Mind And the like may be said concerning the Holy Spirit which hath all the same Divine Perfections but in a different manner from Original Mind and its Word as eternally proceeding from both This is the Account which the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of Nature and Distinction of Persons in the Ever Blessed Trinity which answers the Objections of our Sabellian Arian and Socinian Adversaries and vindicates those Catholick Forms of Speech which they charge with Tritheism Contradiction and Nonsense As to shew this briefly in one view for each part of it has been sufficiently confirmed already The Catholick Faith teaches us That there is but One God and this is demonstrable from the Doctrine of these Fathers For in this Account I have now given there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Absolute Divinity One Divine Nature and therefore but One God But say our Adversaries One God in Natural Religion and according to the general Sense of Mankind signifies One Person who is God And this also in some sense has always been owned by the Catholick Church That as there is but One Absolute Divinity so the Person of the Father who is this One Absolute Divinity is this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is but One Person who is God in this Absolute Sense because there is but One Father who as they often speak is the Fountain of the Deity that is of the Divine Processions of the Son and Holy Spirit He is the Whole Absolute Divinity himself and whatever is Divine Eternally and Essentially proceeds from him in the Unity of his own Nature But at this rate what Divinity do we leave for the Son and the Holy Spirit Truly the very same by Eternal Generation and Procession which is originally and absolutely in the Father For it is the Nature of the Father and the Divinity of the Father which is in the Son and Holy Spirit as the Fathers constantly own and as of necessity it must be because there is no other This Eternal Generation and Procession has always been owned as an ineffable Mystery which we must believe upon the Authority of the Scriptures without pretending to know how God begets an Eternal Son or how the Eternal Spirit proceeds from Father and Son which we confess we have no Notion of but we know likewise That this is no reason to reject this Faith no more than it is a reason to reject the belief of an Eternal Self-originated Being because though it be demonstrable That there must be an Eternal First Cause of all things which has no Cause of its own Being but an Eternal necessary Nature yet we can no more conceive this than we can an Eternal Generation and Procession Supposing therefore without disputing that matter at present that God has an Eternal Son that Eternal Self-originated Mind has an Eternal Subsisting Word and an Eternal Spirit it is evident that this Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit must have all the same Perfections of the Eternal Mind must be all that the Eternal Mind is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excepting its being an Absolute Self-originated Mind Now if he be God who has the whole Divine Nature and Perfections then the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God who by Eternal Generation and Procession have that same
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy AND THE Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers Concerning A TRINITY in UNITY By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXC VIII THE PREFACE I Have little to say to the Reader having sufficiently Explained the Design of this Treatise in the First Section Those who remember how this Controversy has been of late managed may possibly expect what they will not find some sharp Resentments of the Ill Usage I have met with and as sharp Returns but I write not to Revenge my self but to Explain and Vindicate the Truly Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith of a Trinity in Unity which requires a Composed and Sedate Mind both in the Writer and Reader For this Reason I have thus long delayed the Publication of this Treatise the greatest part of which was Printed Two Years since that those who will ever grow Cool might have time to recover their Temper And did I not hope that the Publication of it at this time would tend more to quiet Mens Minds to stop the Mouths of Hereticks and to secure the Catholick Faith than a Passive Silence it should never see the Light how much soever my own Reputation might suffer by it But I persuade my self That the Authority of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Fathers is not at so low an Ebb even in this Age as to be easily despised and therefore their Explications their Arguments their Answers to the Objections of Hereticks will have their due weight and I have not gone one step further I appeal to the Catholick Fathers and am contented to stand or fall by their Sentence I have not wilfully misrepresented their Sense in any thing and have taken all possible care not to mistake it and as far as Human Authority is concerned here I must leave the matter for I know of no further Appeal The CONTENTS CHAP. I. SECT I. THE Present State of the Socinian Controversy and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question Page 1. SECT II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture-Terms 4 The Form of Baptism the Rule and Standard of Faith ibid. That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are more easily understood and give us a truer Idea of a Trinity in Vnity than any Artificial Terms 5 c. SECT III. That the Title of God attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father Son and Holy Ghost gives us the best Account of their Nature and must determine the signification of Ecclesiastical Words 12 This particularly Explained with respect to those Terms Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Existence Subsistence Person c. 13 c. SECT IV. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the real distinction of Persons in the Trinity 20 c. SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Vnity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead explained at large 24 SECT VI. Concerning the Vnity of God 33 In what sense the Catholick Church believed in One God ibid. Tritheism an old Sabellian and Arian Objection against the Trinity 34 How answered by the Catholick Fathers 37 c. CHAP. II. AN Examination of some Considerations concerning the Trinity SECT I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy 51 What Ways the Considerer dislikes 52 c. What way he took viz. consulting Scripture and Natural Sentiments 56 SECT II. Concerning the Traditionary Faith of the Church with respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity 60 What the Catholick Church is from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith ibid. What Evidence we have for this Tradition from the Ancient Heresies condemned by the Catholick Church 64 Of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture 77 SECT III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity 80 His Requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing 81 SECT IV. Concerning his state of the Question That One and the same God is Three different Persons 84 His Examination of these Terms God Unity Identity Distinction Number and Person And 1. Of the Notion of God 86 SECT V. His Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person His Sabellian Notion of a Person that there is but One single Person in the Trinity as Person signifies properly a particular Intelligent Being 88 This he proves from his Notions of Vnity and Distinction the Vnity and Distinction of Ideas of Principle and of Position 91 What he means by an obscure confused Knowledge and a general confused Faith of the Trinity 101 SECT VI. What the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity 103 His Sabellian Notion of One God to be adored under Three different Titles and Characters Ibid. His Scripture-proof of this Examin'd 104 c. His attempt to reconcile this with God's being One and Three 108 c. And with the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity 113 His Account of the Vnion of God and Man 115 What end the belief of the Trinity and Incarnation serve not as a Matter of Faith and Speculation but as an artificial representation of God's love to man 120 CHAP. III. AN Account of the Sabellian Heresy and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it 124 The several kinds of Sabellianism 1. Those who made Father Son and Holy Ghost to be only Three names appearances and offices of the same Person And here the question was not whether the Son was a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person but whether they were distinct Persons from the Father 125 By what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 127 2. That the Son is distinguished from the Father only as a man's word is distinguished from himself 133 And by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy 134 3. Some made God a compound Being and Father Son and Holy Ghost the Three Parts of this one God 143 By what Arguments the Fathers opposed it Ibid. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Homoousion or One Substance of Father Son and Holy Ghost 150 SECT I. The true sense of the Homoousion from those misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 152 SECT II. Some Rules for Expounding the Homoousion 158 SECT III. What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion 163 SECT IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full signification of the Homoousion with respect to the specifick Vnity of the Divine Nature 170 SECT V. That by the Homoousion the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a specifick but a natural Vnity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son 180 Damascen's distinction between one in Notion and one in reality Ibid. This appears from their Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 181 And the Catholick Fathers lay the
23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 165. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 188. l. 16. marg r. ex iâ—demutabilis p. 208. l. 24. Identity p. 216. l. 5. â— Man's r. Man p. 225. l. 34. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 230. l. 2. r. Identity p. 236. l. 14. marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. l. 10. r. an Angel p. 304. l. 2. marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 322. l. 12. de Trin. l. 2. marg l. 15. de Trin. l. 7. l. 32 videri p. 347. l. 14. r. his p. 349. l. 12 13. r. where-ever p 350 marg l. 8. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Curious Reader may observe â—ome other Mistakes which I hope will not disturb the Sense THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SOCINIAN Controversy CHAP. I. SECT I. The Present State of the Socinian Controversy the unreasonableness of it and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question THE Faith of the Holy Trinity is so fundamental to the Christian Religion that if Christianity be worth contending for That is For if God have not an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ and of our Sanctification by the Spirit which in its Consequences is the whole of the Gospel and distinguishes it from all other Religions is utterly lost Those various Heresies relating to the Divinity Person and Offices of Christ and the Holy Spirit which began to appear even in the Apostolick Age and have ever since under several forms and disguises disturbed the Peace of the Church is proof enough how much the great Enemy of Mankind thinks himself concerned by all possible means to corrupt this Faith and that great unwearied unconquerable Zeal wherewith the Catholick Fathers have always defended this Faith shews of what importance they thought it and therefore it is no wonder and ought to give no scandal to Christians that these Disputes are again revived among us with as much fury and insolence as ever for there never was a more unhappy Season for the Enemy to sow his Tares But that which is most to be lamented is That the lukewarmness of some and the intemperate Zeal of others have given greater scandal to the World and more shaken the Faith of Christians than all the Opposition of our Adversaries could have done I need say no more the Case is too well known and the Evil Effects too visible among us I will make no new Quarrels if I can help it but sincerely endeavour to prevent the Mischiefs of what has already happened as far as is necâ—ssary to secure the Faith of Christians and to wrest those Weapons out of our Enemies hands which some professed Friends have unwarily furnished them with To do this I shall endeavour in the first place to restore this Controversie to its original state and take off those Vizards which make it appear very frightful to ordinary Christians This Dispute about the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity has of late been dressed up anew with some old School-Terms which how proper soever they may be to give Learned Men a more distinct Idea and Conception of that Adorable Mystery only amuse common Christians and confound them instead of teaching them better This as it was at first occasioned by Hereticks who denied or corrupted the Christian Faith which forced the Catholick Fathers to use some unscriptural Termâ— which by degrees improved into great Subtilties and disturbed the Church with very nice and wrangling Disputes so our Modern Socinians at this day place the main strength of their Cause in these Disputes and think it a sufficient Confutation of the Faith of the Ever Blessed Trinity that the Trinitarians themselves cannot agree about the Sense of Person Hypostasis Substance Nature Essence nor in what Sense God is One and Three but advance very different and as they think contrary Hypotheses to reconcile the Unity of God with the distinction of Three Persons in the Godhead As if there were no difference between what is fundamental in this Faith and such Metaphysical Speculations As if no man could believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost without determining all the Disputes of the Schools Learned men may dispute these matters and things may so happen as to make such Disputes necessary but the Faith of Christians may be secured and Heresies may be confuted without them The Faith is plain and certain even all that is necessary to the purposes of Religion but men may leap out of their depths where they can find no footing and when such Questions are asked as no man can certainly answer it is very likely that they will be answered very different ways and upon very different Hypotheses and there is no great hurt in this neither while these different Hypotheses are neither made new Articles of Faith nor new Heresies but serve only for Hypotheses to give a probable Answer to such Questions as ought never to have been asked and to stop the mouths of Hereticks when they charge the Catholick Faith with Nonsense and Contradiction To distinguish rightly between these two will set this Controversy upon its true ancient bottom which will spoil the Triumph of our Adversaries and possibly may rectify the Mistakes and allay and qualify the intemperate Heats and Animosities of those whom a common Faith ought to make Friends SECT II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture Terms THE Catholick Fathers have always appealed to the Form of Baptism as the Rule and Standard of Faith that as we are baptized so we must believe In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is a plain simple Faith which every Christian may understand and which every Christian must profess That there is an Eternal Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit of the same Nature and inseparably united to himself and that this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the joint Object of the Christian Faith and Worship This is the true Christian Faith and this is all that we are concerned to defend against our Adversaries and would men stick to this without engaging in Philosophical Disputes which we know little or nothing of and which the Scripture takes no notice of we should soon find how weak and impotent all the Attempts of Hereticks would prove Whatever Disputes there are about the signification of those words Nature Essence Substance Person Hypostasis Subsistences Relations c. there is no Dispute about the signification of Father Son and Holy Spirit we have natural Idea's belong to these words when applied to Creatures and when God is pleased in Scripture to represent himself to us under thâ—se Characters if we must understand any thing by them we can understand nothing else but what the words signify all the World over only allowing for that infinite distance there is between God and Creatures which requires us to abstract from all material and creature imperfections We
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
but yet that Jesus Christ was a Divine and Human Person though Christ was one Person and Jesus another And therefore as the Nicene Creed which we find also in the Ancient Oriental Creeds teaches us to believe in One God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible not to exclude Christ from being the Maker of the World but in opposition to those Hereticks who would not allow the Supreme God who is the Father of Christ to be the Maker of the World but attributed the Creation of this World to one or more Inferior Angels So they add And in One Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten Son of God in opposition to those who made Christ and Jesus Two Persons And yet in this very Heresy we may see what the Ancient Catholick Faith was That Jesus Christ was God and Man as Cerinthus himself owned though he would not unite Christ and Jesus into One Person nor make the Union inseparable The Valentinian Heresy though dressed up after the mode of the Pagan Theology was a manifest Corruption of the Christian Faith under a Pretence of a more perfect knowledge of Divine Mysteries and we may still see the broken Remains of the Catholick Tradition of the Trinity among them Their Pleroma by which they seem to understand the Fulness of the Deity as St. Paul uses that Phrase 2 Col. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily I say this Pleroma consisted of several Aeons or Divine Persons which were propagated from the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father in gradual Descents and all together made up the Compleat and Perfect Deity which were more or fewer according to the various Fancies of Hereticks Now from these wild Conceits we may in some measure learn what the Catholick Faith was That the Godhead was not confined to one Single and Solitary Person but that there is such a Foecundity in the Divine Nature as communicates it self to more Persons than one For had it been the known and received Faith of the Christian Church That there is but One Person in the Godhead as well as but One God there had been no pretence for these Hereticks who called themselves Christians and boasted of a more perfect knowledge of the Christian Faith to have invented such a number of Aeons which they included within their Pleroma as the several Emanations of their Deity And we may observe that most of the Names which they gave to their several Aeons are Scripture-Names and Titles which the Pagan Theology knew nothing of and which they could learn no where but from the Christian Church Basilides I think was one of the first who gave us any distinct account of these Aeons which was new modell'd by Valentinus and other succeeding Hereticks and his first and Supreme Aeon as Epiphanius tells us was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Unbegotten One who only is the Father of all and by others is called the Propater and the Unknown Invisible Incomprehensible Father Now though the Heathens very familiarly call their Supreme God the Father of Gods and Men with respect to his Creating Power yet as the Notion of Father is founded in a substantial Generation as these Hereticks plainly understood it so it is the peculiar Character of God under the Gospel who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son It is certain the first Person in the Godhead was never called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One that is unbegotten but to distinguish him from One who is begotten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten who is God also but God oâ— God And it is observable what Tertullian tells us of Heracleon That he made his first Aeâ—n to be illud quod pronunciat which some Criticks not understanding think to be a defect in the Copy but the sense is plain that his first Aeon is he that pronounceth or speaketh by which he represented the Eternal Generation of the Word So that his first Aeon is the Pronouncer or Speaker that is the Father of the Eternal Word which St. Iohn tells us was in the beginning was with God and was God Which shews that this is nothing else but a disguized Corruption of the Catholick Faith concerning the Eternal Generation of the Word from the Eternal Unbegotten Father To confirm this I observe farther That most of the Names which they give to their other Aeons are such Names Titles or Characters as the Scripture gives to Christ or the Holy Spirit which they have multiplied into so many distinct Persons or Aeons such as the Mind Word Prudence Power and Wisdom Truth Life Light the Only begotten the Paraclete and the like Valentinus indeed as Epiphanius observes did model his Thirty Aeons according to Hesiod's Genealogy and Number of Gods and with some manifest allusions to them but yet he retained as many Scripture-Names as he could the better to reconcile unwary people to his fabulous Genealogiâ—s as the hidden and mysterious sense of Scripture And it is impossible such Fables should ever have obtained any Credit had they not been grafted on the Catholick Faith and pretended to improve it with new degrees of Light and Knowledge When these Heresies were pretty well silenced up start Noetus and Sabellius who ran into the other Extreme The Valentinians had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity by multiplying Three Divine Persons into Thirty Aeons besides all their other Pagan and Fabulous Conceits about them This offended these men as downright Polytheism as indeed it was no better and to avoid this they reject a Trinity of Real and Substantial Persons for a Trinity of Names that Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names of the same Person who is sometimes called the Father at other times the Son or the Holy Ghost with respect to his different Appearances or Operations Or they made the Son and Holy Ghost not Two Persons but Two Personal Attributes in God his Wisdom or Power Or they made the Trinity but Three Parts of One Compounded God as a Man consists of Body Soul and Spirit which of late have been revived among us under different Names After these men arose Arius and his Followers who out of great Zeal also for the Unity of God framed a New and more Subtile Heresy They were sensible that Father and Son were not Two Names but Two Real Distinct Persons and therefore they attributed the whole entire Divinity to the Father and made the Son not to be God by Nature but the most Perfect and Excellent Creature as Perfect an Image of God as any Creature can be but not Consubstantial with God nor Coequal and Coeternal with him All these Heresies were rejected and condemned by the Catholick Church in their several Ages as soon as they appeared and were taken notice of And this is one very good way to learn what the Catholick Faith was from its Opposition to
fulâ— and adequate Idea of God but yet he knows which of those distinct Ideas he has in his mind are applicable to God and which are not But the present question does not conceâ—n the Idea of God which I hope we are all agreed in That God is a Being infinitely perfect But whether this Name God in the Question of the Trinity signifies only One who is God or One single Divine Person Or Whether this Name and the perfect Idea which belongs to it be applicable distinctly to Three to Father Son and Holy Ghost That each of them is True and Perfect God and neither of them is each other and all Three but One God This had been the true Explication of the Term God as applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity To have told us what is meant by God when this Name is peculiarly attributed to the Person of the Father when it is attributed to each Person distinctly and when it is jointly attributed to them all That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God â—t is certain all this must be resolved into the same One Divinity which is perfectly in each of them and inseparaâ—ly and indivisibly in them all And the true stating of his matter had been very proper and would have saved all his other Labour And therefore to save me some labour I will briefly tell him how the Catholick Fathers understood it which is the only possible way I know of reconciling these different Expressions When they tell us That the Person of the Father is in an eminent and peculiar manner the One God by this they understand That the Father alone is self-originated and from himself That the Whole Divinity and Godhead is originally his own which he received from no other Which is the first and most natural notion we have of God and of One God When they say That though the Father in this sense be the One God yet the Son also is True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God they ascribe Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost upon account of the Eternal and Perfect Communication of the Divine Nature to them For he who has the True Divine Nature is True and Perfect God And therefore the Son who is eternally begotten of his Father of the Substance of his Father and is Consubstantial with him is True and Perfect God but God of God and the like may be said of the Holy Spirit who eternally proceeds from Father and Son When they teach That the Trinity is One God they mean by it That the same One Divinity does subsist whole and entire indivisibly and inseparably but yet distinctly in them all as I have already explained it So that the Unity of the Godhead gives an account of all these Expressions Why the Father is said to be the One God and yet that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God and Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God All this is taught in Scripture and is the Faith of the Catholick Church and I would never desire a better Proof of the Truth and Certainty of any Notion than that it takes in the whole Mystery and answers to every part of it which no other account I have ever yet met with can do SECT V. An Examination of his Notions and Ideas of Unity Distinction Person c. AND now the Sabellian Scene opens apace If the Heresy of Sabellius was That there is but One who is God but One Divine Intelligent Person as well as One Divine Nature this our Considerer expresly owns and does his Endeavour to prove it absolutely impossible that it should be otherwise that is That the Catholick Faith asserted and defended by the Catholick Church against Sabellius is absolutely impossible To explain the word Person he tells us It signifies one of these two things either a particular Intelligent Being or an Office Character or some such complex Notion applicable to such a Being If you would know in which of these senses we must understand the word Person when we say there are Three Persons in the Trinity he tells us plainly That the simple Idea of God can be applied but to One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature or Principle And that all the Personal Distinction we can conceive in the Deity must be founded on some accessory Ideas extrinsecal to the Divine Nature a certain Combination of which Ideas makes up the second Notion signified by the word Person And for this he appeals to Natural Sentiments mistaking Heresy for Nature And if we fairly and impartially examine our own Thoughts upon this Subject we shall find That when we name God the Father we conceive the Idea of God so far as we are capable of conceiving it as acting so and so under such respects and relations and when we name God the Son we conceive nothing else but the same Idea of God over again under different relations and so likewise of the Holy Ghost Noetus Praxeas or Sabellius never taught their Heresy in more express words than these And what is to be done now Must we dispute this Point over again with the Considerer and confute a Heresy which has been so early so often and so constantly condemned by the Catholick Church For my part I can pretend to say nothing new which has not long since been much better said by the Catholick Fathers and therefore before we part I shall acquaint him with their Judgment in the Case and leave it to rest on their Authority and Reasons But it may not be amiss to mind this Considerer That he has all the Schoolmen as far as I have heard or had opportunity to consult them as well as the Catholick Fathers against him in his Notion of a Person for they all receive Boetius's Definition That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature Or it may be the Authority of Melancthon may be more considerable with him who tells us That the Church in this Article of the Trinity understands by Person an Individual Intelligent Incommunicable Substance And adds That the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there is but One Essence or Nature and Three Hypostases that is Three really subsisting not commentitious vanishing confused but distinct particular Intelligent Persons And the Censure he passes upon Servetus upon this score is very remarkable That Fanatical Fellow Servetus plaid with the word Person and contended That in Latin it anciently signified a Dress or Habit or the distinction of an Office as Râ—scius is sometimes said to act the part of Achilles sometimes of Vlysses Or the Person of a Consul is one thing and the Person of a Slave is another as Cicero speaks that it is a great thing to maintain the Character of the Person of a Prince in the Commonwealth And
a Mistake only in Philosophy not in the Traditionary Faith of the Church for which only we alledge his Authority And the Conclusion of this Argument most fully acquaints us what he understood by a Person Whatever says he the Substance of the Word is that I call a Person and to that I give the Name of Son and by acknowledging him the Son I own him to be second to the Father Whoever reads this must confess That Tertullian did believe Father and Son to be Two distinct substantial Persons that though the Son be of the same Substance with the Father as begotten of his Father's Substance yet the Personal Substance of the Father was no more the Personal Substance of the Son than Father and Son were One Person Novatianus who was Cotemporary with St. Cyprian though a Schismatick was charged with no Heresy in this Article and he opposes the Sabellians with the same Arguments and almost in the same words that Tertullian and done before him And tells us particularly That this Divine Word which is the Son of God begotten and born of him is not a mere Sound or Voice like the Word of a Man but that substantial Virtue and Power which proceeds from God A Divine Substance whose Name is the Word Such a Word as is both the Son of God and God God proceeding from God and making a Second Person in the Godhead Epiphanius in opposition to the Heresies of Noetus and Sabellius who made Father Son and Holy Ghost but One Substantial Person affirms over and over That the Father is Substance the Son Substance and the Holy Ghost Substance that is each of them Substance by himself and as distinct in Substance as they are in Person Three Substantial Persons which are not one another nor all the same These Hereticks allowed the Father to be Substance the Son Substance the Holy Ghost Substance but denied them to be Three in Substance but taught that they were but One Substance as they were but One and the same Person Three Names or Three distinct Virtues and Powers of the same One Substance or Person And therefore when in opposition to these men Epiphanius asserts That the Father is Substance the Son Substance and the Holy Ghost Substance he can mean no less but that each of them is as distinctly Substance as he is a Person for to oppose One Substance and One substantial Person you must assert not Three diverse or different Substances but Three as distinct in Substance as they are in Person or Three distinct substantial Persons Epiphanius asserts against these Hereticks That the Son is not the Father but truly and properly a Son begotten of God the Father as to Substance Now a Son which is substantially begotten of the Father and is not the Father must in Substance be distinct from God the Father that is a distinct tho not separate Substance from God the Father Athanasius also is very positive in this That this Divine Word is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Father Being of Being the Image or Character of his Father's Substance not an insubstantial Word but a living Power and the Author of Life to all things not like the Power of a Man which denominates a Man powerful for the Power of Man is not his Offspring or Son whereas this Power of God is his Son that the Father is Perfect Power as the Father of Power and the Son Perfect Power as born of him It were endless to transcribe such Sayings as these out of the Fathers but I cannot miss Athanasius his Argument from those words of our Saviour I am in the Father and the Father in me Now says he the Father is not the Word in the Heart of the Son and therefore neither is the Son the Word in the Heart of the Father but the Living Word begotten eternally of the Living God the Father and being without beginning with the Father insomuch that we cannot conceive the Father ever to have been alone Which attributes as compleat and distinct Personal Subsistence to the Son as to the Father That if the Father who has the Son in himself be a real subsisting Infinite Person the Son who has the whole Father in himself must be as real subsisting Infinite a Person for there is the same reason of both The Answer Athanasius gives to a Sabellian Objection against the substantial Generation and Subsistence of the Word and Son of God is an unanswerable Proof what he thought of this matter The Objection is this That if the Word and Son be truly and substantially begotten this substantial Word must go out of the Father and subsist separately from him Whereas the Word which is in God must be inseparable from him and not appear out of him for how should he appear out of God when God fills all places even Heaven and Earth and therefore there is no place for the Word to subsist in where God is not In answer to this Athanasius first observes what this Objection is levelled against viz. To disprove the true and proper Generation of the Son his Eternal Procession from the Father and Subsistence with the Father that the Father does not compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself nor the Son compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself This is the Faith the Sabellians opposed and which Athanasius defended as the Argument it self will assure us which contradicts no other Notion of Generation or Subsistence but a substantial Generation and a compleat Personal Subsistence of the Word but they could not imagine how the Word should be substantially begotten and compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself in his own Person and Substance distinct from his Father's Subsistence and Person without going out of the Father and subsisting in a separate place from the Father as all Created Births do which opposes nothing but a real substantial Birth and a compleat distinct subsistence of the Word and therefore this is what the Sabellians took for the Catholick Faith and this is what Athanasius defends Who tells them that this is a very ignorant mistake to think that God is circumscribed by place and to conceive the Son in another place and to imagine that the Father and Son must be divided and separated one in this place and another in that if we acknowledge that the Son is begotten of the Father and does appear and subsist by himself distinct from the Father This he proves from Scripture That there is no place that can contain God and therefore we must have no imagination of Place when we think of God the Son and the Holy Spirit That these are false and Atheistical Reasonings That the Omnipresence of God is not a co-extension with all Creatures which is a bodily or kind of Corporeal Omnipresence but his Power holds and contains all things for Power is unbodied and invisible which neither encompasses other things nor is encompassed by them and therefore it is impious to ask for or to conceive what is the Place of God of the Word or of the Holy Spirit And
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
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
own Nature and Godhead each of which is True and Perfect God but not a Second and Third God but the Son of God and the Spirit of God Divine Subsisting Relations in the One Absolute Godhead of the Father which does not multiply the Name nor Nature of God This is the Account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons and therefore this must be the Catholick Sense of this Proposition And here it will be proper to observe That in the Account they give of the Unity of God that is the Unity in Trinity they indifferently assign One Divinity and One Father as the Reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is One God because there is One Divinity and there is One God because there is One Father which are not two different Reasons but one and the same from whence it necessarily follows That this One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father and that this One God in Trinity is the Father for One God must necessarily signify One Person when the Father is the One God So that the Father who is the One Absolute Divinity is the One God who ceases not to be the One God as St. Hilary and others constantly teach by having a Son and Holy Spirit who receive all from him live and subsist in him and are eternally and inseparably One with him Thus we are taught in the Athanasian Creed to worship One God in Trinity that is the Eternal Father who is the One God with his Son and Holy Spirit and the Trinity in Vnity that is Father Son and Holy Ghost not Three Gods but One in the Unity of the Father's Godhead For the Godhead of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty Coeternal There is but One Godhead One Glory One Majesty and that is the Godhead Glory and Majesty of the Father and the Son and Spirit are in the Godhead Glory Majesty of the Father as Internal Processions Living Subsisting Relations in the Father's Godhead This Account which I confess is the only Account of this Matter that I can understand whatever other Faults it may have which I do not yet see I 'm sure is perfectly Orthodox is neither Tritheism Sabellianism Arianism nor Socinianism but the True Catholick Faith of a Trinity in Unity Here is but One Absolute Divinity but One Father with his Eternal Son and Spirit in the Unity of his own Nature and Godhead and therefore but One God For Three Gods must be Three Absolute Divinities without any Internal Relation or dependence on each other Internal Relations though Real Subsisting Relations can't multiply Nature and therefore can't multiply Gods Here are Three Real Proper Living Intelligent Substantial Divine Persons and therefore no Sabellianism not One Personal God with three Names Offices Manifestations Modes Powers Parts Here are Three truly Divine Persons each of which is by himself or in his own Person True and Perfect God The Father God of himself Unbegottan Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit The Son the Son of God and True and Perfect God as the Son of God The Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Son and True and Perfect God as the Spirit of God So that here is neither Arianism Macedonianism nor Socinianism no Made or Created Nature no Creature in the Ever Blessed Trinity No say our Arian and Socinian Adversaries neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost according to this Hypothesis are True and Perfect God as the Father is Neither of them have Self-existence or a Fecundity of Nature which are thought great Perfections in the Father but the Son is not of himself but begotten of his Father nor is the Spirit of himself but proceeds from Father and Son and neither of them have a Son or Spirit of their own as the Father has All this I readily grant for it is the Catholick Faith that the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Father that he never was a Son and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so a Son that he never was nor can be a Father and so of the Holy Spirit That there is but One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts as the Athanasian Creed teaches This proves indeed as we all own that neither the Son nor Spirit are absolutely God an Absolute Divinity as the Father is but only Divine Processions an Absolute Divinity has a Fecundity of Nature Absolute Original Mind according to this Hypothesis must have its Word and Spirit in the Unity of its Nature but the Word being no Absolute Nature can't beget another Word nor the Spirit another Spirit So that this Objection only delivers us from the Charge of Tritheism by proving Father Son and Holy Ghost to be but One Divinity One God For if the Son were as absolutely God as the Father is there is no account to be given why he should not beget a Son as his Father did him as we see it is among Men where the Son begets a Son and becomes a Father and thus there could be no possible end of Divine Generations but these are Generations ad extra which give as compleat and absolute a Nature and absolute Subsistence to the Son as the Father has but Internal Essential Relations are in the Individual Unity of Nature and therefore cannot multiply when Nature has all that is essential to it So that Self-existence and Generation do not belong to the Character of a Son and with the Catholick Church we teach That the Son of God is God only as the Son and it would be Heresy to ascribe the peculiar Prerogatives of the Father to him And then it can be no Objection against the Divinity of the Son that he has not what is peculiar and proper only to the Person of the Father as Self-existence and Generation is Self-existence Self-origination to have no cause of his Being I grant is essential to the Idea of a God And Eternal and Necessary Existence to the Notion of any Person who is in any sense God for he who ever began to be and subsists precariously can in no sense be God But then though Self-existence be essential to the Notion of an Absolute Divinity yet a Person who is a Son and therefore not Self-originated but eternally begotten of a Self-originated Father and subsists eternally and necessarily as an Essential Procession and Relation in a Self-originated Nature must be the Son of God and God the Son True and Perfect God as the Eternal Necessary Essential Procession of a Self-originated Divinity For what is internally and essentially related to a Self-existent Nature can be no Creature and therefore must be True and Perfect God Thus to proceed The same Rule of speaking if Men be peaceably and charitably disposed to understand one another will easily reconcile that
must not think that God begets a Son as men do by corporeal passions or division of his substance or that he begets a Son without himself or separate from himself or that because a Creature-father is always older than his Son therefore God can't beget a Son coâ—ternal with himself for all these Circumstances do not belong to the essential Notion of a Father but of a Creature-father But then it is essential to the Notion both of Father and Son that the Father communicates his own Nature to the Son and that the Son receives his Nature and Being from his Father that Father and Son do truly and really subsist by themselves though they may be and when we speak of God the Father and his Son are inseparably united to each other that the Son with respect to his Nature is perfectly the same that his Father is the son of a man as true and perfect Man as his Father is and therefore the Son of God as true and perfect God By these Arguments the Catholick Fathers confuted both the Sabellians who made Father Son and Holy Ghost but Three Names and the Arians who denied the Consubstantiality of the Son or that he had the same Nature with his Father For both these Heresies destroy'd the essential Notion and Idea of Father and Son which includes in it both a real distinction and sameness of Nature that they are as really Two but infinitely more one and the same than any other Father and Son in Nature are Now I cannot see but that as these Names and Characters are better understood and liable to less dispute so they convey to our Minds a more distinct conception of God the Father and his Eternal Son than any other artificial Terms Were there no Controversy about Nature Essence Person Substance Hypostasis yet they immediately convey no Idea of God the Father and his Eternal Son to my mind much less give me a more distinct Conception than these Terms Father and Son do For they neither acquaint me what God is nor what Father and Son is and as the Schools themselves assert cannot be Univocally or in the same sense spoken of Creatures and of God who is Super-Essential above all Praedicaments and Terms of Art that is Nature Essence Substance Hypostasis Person do not and cannot signify the same thing when spoken of God as when applied to Creatures And this has occasioned all those Disputes concerning the Use and Signification of these words when applied to God which indeed is no reason for wholly discarding these Terms which the Perverseness and Importunity of Hereticks has forced the Church to use and which have now been so long used that the Ecclesiastical Sense of these Words is very well known to Learned men if they would be contented to use them in that Received Ecclesiastical Sense in which the Catholick Fathers have always used them but yet it is a reason not to clog the Faith of ordinary Christians with them who are not skilled in Metaphysical and Abstracted Notions and it is a reason to reduce the Controversy as much as possibly we can to Scripture Terms when these Artificial and Metaphysical Terms divide even the Professors of the Catholick Faith and give too just occasion to the vain Boasts and Triumphs of Hereticks To represent this matter plainly I observe That all all those Unscriptural Terms which the Catholick Fathers made use of for the Explication of this Adorable Mystery were intended for no other purpose but to give us some distinct Ideas and Conceptions of what the Scripture teaches concerning the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost by using such Terms as signify something in Creatures which bears some though a very imperfect anology and resemblance to what we are to conceive of God And therefore the Fathers justifie the use of such words by shewing That all they mean by them is contained in Scripture and reject any Words and any such Sense of Artificial Words as cannot be justified by Scripture Which by the way is a more infallible Rule than all Metaphysical Subtleties to find out in what sense the Fathers used such Words by observing to what Scripture-Notions they apply them and how they justifie their use from Scripture when they are Disputed If this be the truth of the Case as it certainly is then the Catholick Faith does not depend upon the use of these Terms for it was before them for they were intended only to explain and illustrate the Catholick Faith and to comprise Scripture-Notions in Terms of Art which must be acknowledged to be of great use and was by experience found to be so in the Disputes with ancient Hereticks while the Fathers agreed in the sense of these Terms But when these Terms themselves are become the great matter of Dispute and men who as is to be hoped agree in the Catholick Faith cannot agree about the Propriety and Signification of such Terms nor how they are to be applied and used whether in the singular or plural Number whether substantively or adjectively in recto or obliquo and our Adversaries abuse such Disputes to the Reproach of the Catholick Faith as a perplex'd uncertain contradictious Riddle and Mystery which men can know nothing of or can never agree in it becomes absolutely necessary at present to take this Controversy out of Terms of Art and to let our Adversaries see That our Controversy with them is not concerned in these Disputes That it is not about the Signification and Use of such words as Essence Nature Substance Person c. but Whether the Supreme Eternal Self-originated Father have not an Eternal Son eternally begotten of himself and an Eternal Spirit the Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally proceeding from them And whether this Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit are not True and Perfect God In this all sincere Trinitarians do heartily agree with each other and are ready to join issue upon this State of the Controversy with all their Adversaries of what denomination soever And if we can prove from Scripture That God has an Eternal Son begotten of himself and that this Eternal Son is True and Perfect God as the Father is and that the Father and Son have an Eternal Spirit who is True and Perfect God as Father and Son is I hope this is a sufficient Confutation of Socinianism and yet all this may be proved without concerning our selves in any Metaphysical Disputes And therefore such Disputes as these though they give opportunity to our Adversaries to make some Flourishes and to cast Mists before peoples eyes are not of that moment as they would represent them they neither prove Socinianism to be true nor the Catholick Faith of the Trinity to be false or uncertain I do not intend at present to dispute this Point with the Socinians Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit for there is no dispute about the Father be not each of them True and Perfect God This has been proved
God excepting their Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost whereby they are distinguished into Three As for Example If by Nature Essence Substance Existence Subsistence however they may differ in their formal Conceptions they only mean a true and real Being who actually perfectly compleatly is what it is God is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most perfect sense of all for he is All Being his Name is Iehovah which as Learned Men most probably conclude signifies a Plenitude and Perfection of Being which is such a Perfection as includes all other Perfections in it for Perfect Being is every thing which perfectly is This is the peculiar Name and essential Character of God and of God only God is that is is Eternal Essential Immutable Life and Being in which sense the Apostle tells us That He only has Immortality Creatures are but are not Essential Life and Being Being is not included in the formal Conception or Definition of any Created Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature was a true Definition of Human Nature before any man was created and would be so for ever though all mankind were annihilated And therefore we may reasonably enough in Creatures distinguish between Nature Substance Existence Subsistence if by Nature we understand that Idea or Pattern according to which they are made and by Substance that which is made whatever it is whether Matter or Spirit which is the Subject of those Moral or Natural Perfections which belong to the Idea of such a Creature and by Existence and Subsistence their actual Being which they receive from their Maker with regard to their compleat or incompleat manner of Existence But now we can form no Idea of God without perfect life and being for whatever else according to our imperfâ—ct manner of conceiving is contained in the Idea of God is nonsense and contradiction without it Infinite Wisdom Infinite Power and Infinite Goodness is the Idea of nothing without Eternal and Necessary Being and an Infinitely Perfect Nothing is a contradiction in the very Notion But Infinite Perfect Life and Being includes all other Perfections and is the most simple and comprehensive Idea of God for whatever perfectly is is whatever is any real Perfection So that there is no foundation nor any occasion for such Distinctions of Essence Nature Substance Existence Subsistence in God for his Essence Nature Substance is his Being and his Being is perfect Existence and Subsistence These Terms differ in their formal Conceptions when applied to Creatures but in essential Life and Being these cannot be formally distinguished for we cannot conceive Existence or Subsistence as superadded to Nature as we do in Creatures because Necessary Essential Being is the Divine Nature Nor can we distinguish between Essence Nature and Substance because there is no distinction in God between the Subject and its Faculties and Powers which is the Foundation of that distinction in Creatures Men who do not love to use words without any Notion belonging to them find themselves extremely puzzled to fit any distinct Ideas to these words when applied to God When the Fathers and Schoolmen apply these Terms to God they take care to shew how differently they are used when applied to God from what they signifie when applied to Creatures They assert the most absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature without the least composition and indeed expound all these Terms to the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esse to signify the most Absolute Being or the most Perfect Is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is Simple Perfect Existence One St. Austin whose Authority is sacred in the Schools will furnish us with sayings enough to this purpose Nothing is more certain with him than that in God to Be to Live to Understand or whatever else we can attribute to God is all the same is Perfect Being or Essence And therefore he owns the impropriety of those Terms Substance and Subsistence when applied to God But notwithstanding this that God is the most Pure Simple Being without any imaginable composition yet since we cannot comprize all that is necessary for us to know of God in one simple uncompounded thought we must unavoidably conceive the Idea of God by Parts under different formal Conceptions such as his Wisdom his Power his Goodness his Truth and Faithfulfulness c. for such distinct representations as these God makes of himself in the Holy Scriptures they are what we can distinctly apprehend and are absolutely necessary for the Government of our lives and to know what we are to expect from God But such distinctions as we can frame no distinct conceptions of as are apt to corrupt our Notions of God with corporeal Representations and perplex our Minds with endless and inextricable difficulties ought to be cautiously used and carefully explained to prevent all mistakes and to reduce them to such plain and simple Notions as come nearest to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Essence And now I suppose it will admit of no dispute Whether the Father who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence or whether the Son who is God be Essence Substance Subsistence and so in like manner the Holy Ghost For this signifies no more than To Be in the most perfect and absolute sense of Being which is the first and most simple Idea of God Absolute Essence and Being So that if the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is each of them is Essence Substance Subsistence in the most Perfect and Absolute sense of these Terms For if each of them is and each of them is God each of them is only in that Notion of Being which is included in the Idea of God which contains the most absolute Perfection of Being that is all that is absolutely Perfect And will any Trinitarian deny That the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is And then I know not what other Dispute there can be about this matter if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father is the Son is and the Holy Ghost is in the most Perfect Notion of Being and that is all that is meant by Essence Substance Subsistence when spoken of God In the same manner we may examine the signification of the word Person which has occasioned no small Dispute We say that there are Three Persons in the Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost and each of these Divine Persons is in himself True and Perfect God Now if we must call these Divine Three Three Persons which long Use and Custom has made Reasonable and in some measure Necessary the most certain way to determine the signification of Person when applied to God is to consider in what sense one who is True and Perfect God may be called a Person for GOD is the Scripture Name and Character which is distinctly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore that must give the Signification to all other words of Human Use
Latin Fathers nay to the Schoolmen themselves and must be owned by all Men of Sense that esse vivere intelligere sapere velle bonum esse magnum esse c. to be to live to understand to be wise to will to be good and to be great or whatever else we can attribute to the Divine Nature is but unum omnia all one and the same in God I say if it be Objected that the consequence of this is That to say that in this sense of Is the Father Is the Son Is the Holy Ghost Is is equivalent to asserting Three Distinct Substances Minds Spirits Lives Understandings Wills c. in the Trinity I cannot help it St. Austin was never yet charged with Tritheism Let them either deny what St. Austin and the rest of the Fathers teach about this matter and try if they can defend the absolute Sâ—mplicity of the Divine Nature without it or let them deny if they think good that the Father Is the Son Is and the Holy Ghost Is in this Notion of Perfect and Absolute Being or try if they can find such a medium between Perfect Is and is not as can belong to any Being which is True and Perfect God or allow which is the true solution of it that Is and Is and Is Essence and Essence and Essence are but One Eternal Is One Eternal Essence as they are but One God Of which more presently I always was of opinion that these Terms in the plural number ought not to be familiarly used because few Men can conceive of them as they are worthy of God and therefore the Fathers were vâ—ry cautious in using them which they very rarely did but when they were extorted from them by the perverse importunity of Hereticks but I cannot see how it is possible to deny three Selfs or three Is's in the Uâ—ity of the Godhead without denying a Trinity and if each of these Three be himself and not another and each of them Is and Is by himself this is the least we can say of the Ever Blessed Trinity and this is all with respect to their Distinction that we need say of them So that if Father Son and Holy Ghost be so in a true and proper Notion are in truth and reality what these Names of Father Son and Spirit signify That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper natural Father the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true proper genuine Son and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a true proper sense the Spirit of the Father and the Son as the Catholick Fathers always Professed they must be as truly and perfectly Distinct as Father and Son are The only Question then is Whether these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost signify naturally and properly when spoken of the Holy Trinity or are only metaphorical and allusive Names though what they should be Metaphors of is not easy to conceive and as absurd to conceive that there should be any Metaphors in God who is all Perfect Essence and Being The Divine Nature and Perfections which we cannot conceive of as they are may be expressed by Metaphors taken from some thing which is analogous in Creatures upon which account we read of the Hands and Eyes and Ears and Bowels and Mouth of God Creatures may serve for Metaphors for Shadows and Images to represent something of God to us but the reality of all is in God So that we may allow Father and Son in some sense to be Metaphorical Names when applied to God not that God the Father is not in the highest and most perfect sense a Father and his Son a most proper natural genuine Son but because the Divine Generation is so perfect a Communication of the Divine Nature and Being from Father to Son that Human Generations Creature-Fathers and Sons are but obscure imperfect images and resemblances of it When any thing is spoken Metaphorically of God the Metaphor and Image is always in the Creatures the Truth Perfection and Reality of all in God And if this be a certain and universal rule then if God be a Father if he have a Son an only Bâ—gotten Son Begotten Eternally of himself not Made nor Created but Begotten though this Eternal Generation be infinitely above what we can conceive yet it is evident that God the Father is more Properly and Perfectly a Father and his Son more Properly and Perfectly a Son than any Creature-Fathers or Sons are But I think this will admit of no Dispute if we own that God has a Son who is himself True and Perfect God For a Son who is Perfect God is God of God That he is a Son proves that he receives his Nature from his Father for this is Essential to the Notion of a Son That he is Perfect God proves the Perfection of his Generation from the Perfection of his Nature For to be Perfect God of Perfect God is to receive the Whole Perfect Undivided Nature of his Father which is the most perfect Generation that is possible for a Whole to beget a Whole And if God the Father and his Son be Truly and Perfectly Father and Son they must be Truly and Perfectly Distinct That is they are in a proper sense Two and by the same reason Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three And we need no other proof of this but the very Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost if we understand them in a proper and natural Sense SECT V. These Names Father Son and Holy Ghost prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead III. THESE Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost as they signify and prove a real Distinction between these Three so they also signify and prove the Unity Sameness Identity of Nature and Godhead Which reconciles the Faith of the Trinity with the Faith of one God The same One Divine Essence and Godhead being and subsisting Whole Perfect and Entire in each of these Divine Three I shall Explain and Confirm this matter more at large hereafter and therefore at present shall only briefly represent this Notion and the reason of it One Eternal Self-Originated Divine Nature is One Divinity and One God and nothing can destroy the Unity of God but what destroys the Unity of the Divine Nature by Division or Multiplication And if this be the true Notion of the Unity of God and if it be not I would desire to know why this is not and what is then the Unity of God may be preserved in Three each of whom is True and Perfect God if the same One Divine Nature or Divinity subsists distinctly in them all And the very Characters and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost do necessarily infer and prove the same One Divinity in them all And therefore the Christian Trinity is so far from contradicting that it establishes the Faith of one God As to explain this in a few words All Christians agree That God whom we call the Father is an
by whom are all things and we by him 1 Cor. 8.6 St. Hilary finds this God of whom are all things and this Lord by whom are all things in the Mosaical History of the Creation And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters and God made the firmament and divided the waters c. 1. Gen. 6 7. Where as he applies it the Father commands and the Son his Almighty Word makes all things So the Psalmist tells us of the Father He spake and it was done he commanded and it stood fast 33. Psal. 9. Or as it is in the 148 th Psal. 5. He commanded and they were created And by whom they were created St. Iohn tells us In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made 1 Joh. 1 2. This he thinks proves a plain distinction of jubentis Dei facientis Dei God that commands and God that does for common sense will not allow that they should be one single Solitary Person much more reason have we to distinguish them when both the Old and New Testament distinguish them But whatever dispute this may admit that Account Moses gives of the Creation of Man he takes to be an unexceptionable Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him 1. Gen. 26.27 Now if we understand these words as spoken by God in the same sense as we should and ought to understand them had they been spoken by men which St. Hilary lays down as a Principle That God speaks to us as we speak to one another and expects to be understood by us according to the common use and acceptation of such forms of speech then let Vs make man in Our Image after Our Likeness cannot signify a singular and solitary Person for such a form of speech naturally imports a Plurality of Persons and a common Nature and Likeness No single solitary Person speaks to himself to do any thing but only wills and chuses what to do and execâ—â—es his own purposes much less does he speak to himself in the Plural Number which in common use signifies some Companions and Partners in the work Let Vs make cannot signify One single Person nor can Our Image admit Two Persons of an unlike and different Nature when the Image is but one and the same and therefore this must prove that there are more Divine Persons than One and that they have all the same Divine Nature Were God but one single and solitary Person this would be a most unaccountable form of speech and there can be no pretence to put such a harsh sense on the words unless we certainly knew that there was no other Divine Person but he who spoke but then if instead of knowing this we certainly know the contrary that when God made the World he was not alone but had his Eternal Substantial Wisdom the Person of the Eternal Word with him by whom he made the world this puts the matter out of doubt And this St. Hilary proves frâ—m that account which Solomon gives of Wisdom 8 Prov. 22 c. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was Then I was by him as one brought up with him rejoicing always before him And therefore the Father was not alone and did not speak to himself when he made the world his own Wisdom a Divine Eternal Person co-operating with him and rejoicing in the Perfection of his Works But besides this he proves at large that the Angel which so often appeared to Abraham Hagar Iacob to Moses in a Burning Bush and is in express terms called God the Judge of the world the God of Abraham and Isaac and Iacob was not a Created Angel nor God the Father and yet was True and Perfect God even the Son of God who in the fulness of time became Man and adds several Passages in the Psalms and Prophets which plainly own a Divine Person distinct from God the Father to be True and Perfect God I need not tell those who are acquainted with the Writings of the Ancient Fathers that they all insist on the same Arguments to prove the same thing that there is not in any one point a more universal Consent amongst them which is too Venerable an Authority to be over-ruled by Criticism it being no less than a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture from the Apostolick Age. But I am no further concerned in this at present than to shew what Notion the Catholick Fathers had about the Unity of God These Fathers did not fence against the Objection of Tritheism by distinguishing away the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by making the Son God ex accidenti secundum quid for they knew nothing of an accidental or secundum quid God which I must own sounds to me very like Blasphemy and Contradiction that when this Name God signifies the most necessary and absolutely Perfect Being any Person to whom this Name does naturally and essentially belong should be God by Accident or only in a limited and qualified sense But without fearing the Charge of Tritheism they with Moses and the Prophets own another Divine Person distinct from the Father but as Real and Substantial a Person and as truly and perfectly God as the Father is Insomuch that Tertullian when he had alledgâ—d that Tâ—xt 45. Psal. 6 7. which the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ 1. Heb. Thy throne O Gâ—d is for ever and ever the scepter of thy Kingdom is a right scepter Therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows was not aâ—raid to add Ecce Duos Deos Behold Two Gods That is Two Divine Pâ—rsons each of whom is by himself truly and essentially God for notwithstanding this he would not say there are Two or Three Gods and gives his reason for it He owned a Plurality of Gods even Tritheism it self in that sense of the word Tritheism which the Arians and Sabellians objected against the Faith of the Trinity as Three Gods signify no more than Three Divine Substantial Persons each of whom is truly and perfectly God as having distinctly in himself the whole and perfect Divine Nature but this he and the other Fathers deny to be Tritheism they are God and God and God but not Three Gods And they think it a sufficient proof as any man would who believes the Scripture that this is not the Scripture-Notion of Tritheism because the same Scripture which teaches us that there is but One God attributes
dislikes those who are for reverencing the Mystery of the Trinity without ever looking into it at all who think it proposed to us only as a Trial and Exercise of our Faith and the more implicit that is the fuller do we express our Trust and Reliance upon God Now if by not looking into it at all he means not enquiring what they are to believe concerning the Trinity nor why they believe it this I acknowledge is a very odd sort of Faith but I believe he cannot name any such men whose avowed Principle this is An Implicit Faith is only meritorious in the Church of Rome but then an Implicit Faith is to believe without knowing what or why but these Ignoramus or Mystery-Trinitarians as some late Socinian Considerers have insolently and reproachfully called them and whom our Author ought not to have imitated never teach such an Implicit Faith as this much less admire the Triumph and Merit of Faith in believing Contradictions and the more the better Under all the appearance of Modesty and Temper these are very severe and scandalous Reflections upon some of the Wisest and Greatest Men amongst us and which this Considerer had little reason for as will soon appear The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the most Fundamental Article of the whole Christian Faith and therefore an explicite Knowledge and Belief of it is essential to the Christian Profession and thus all Protestant Divines teach and whatever Voluminous Disputes there may be about it the true Christian Faith of the Trinity is comprized in a few words and the Proofs of it are plain and easy For the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach us that there is but One God and that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son as I have already explained it This we all teach our people to believe upon the Authority of Scripture which is the only Authority we can have for matters of pure Revelation and expound those Texts to them which expresly contain this Faith and vindicate them from the Cavils and perverse Comments of Hereticks And this I think is not to reverence the Mystery without ever looking into it at all when we look as far as we can till Revelation bounds our prospect And this is to look into it as far as God would have us and as far as is necessary to all the purposes of Religion that is as far as the knowledge of this Mystery is of any use to us Now when this is done there are a great many wise men who think we ought to look into this Mystery no further and there seems to be a very good reason for it viz. because with all our looking we can see no further There are indeed some curious Questions started about reconciling the Unity of God with the belief of a Trinity in which there are Three each of whom is by himself True and Perfect God for if there be but One God how can there be Three each of whom is True God Now whatever Answer may be given to such kind of Objections and pretended Contradictions these Learned Men think there is no reason to clog the Christian Faith with them nor to disturb the minds of ordinary Christians with such Subtilties That the Authority of God who has revealed this and the acknowledged Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is a sufficient Answer to all Objections and as ridiculously as a Witty Man may represent this That is the truest Faith not which can believe Contradictions but which can despise the pretence of Contradictions when opposed to a Divine Revelation for that resolves Faith wholly into Divine Authority which is the true Notion of a Divine Faith To say that this will not suppress any of our Doubts or Disputes in Religion is a manifest mistake for such a profound Veneration for the Authority of God would silence them all And whatever is the Natural Propension of the Soul to the search of Truth Natural Reason will tell us that there are a thousand things which we can know nothing of and that it is in vain to search after them but that the Divine Wisdom is unsearchable and therefore God is to be believed beyond our own knowledge or comprehension and when we are agreed about the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation that will silence all our Disputes about what is revealed and set bounds to our Enquiries And I never knew before the danger of submitting our Reason to Faith of a blind resignation of judgment as he is pleased to call it to a Divine Revelation for that is the matter in debate Blasphemies and Contradictions may and have been imposed upon mens Faith under the Venerable Name of Mysteries but such Blasphemies and Contradictions were never revealed in Scripture and therefore belong not to the present Enquiry which only concerns believing what we allow to be revealed without looking any farther into it We allow all men to examine the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation and to examine what is revealed but here we must stop and not pretend to judge of what is revealed by the measures of human Reason which is so inadequate a Rule for Divine and Supernatural Truths This is all very plain and if he will allow the Truth of this he must confess that what he has said upon this first Head is nothing to the purpose It is a very popular thing to decry Mysteries and to cry up Reason but to be very cautiously imitated because it is generally found that such men are either no great Believers or no very deep Reasoners 2. In the next place he tells us of a very strange sort of men who call the Doctrine of the Trinity an Incomprehensible Mystery and yet are at a great deal of pains to bring it down to a level with Human Vnderstanding and are all very earnest to have their own particular Explications acknowledged as necessary Articles of Faith An Incomprehensible Mystery is what Human Reason cannot comprehend to bring an Incomprehensible Mystery down to the level of Human Vnderstandings is to make it comprehensible by Reason and those are notable men indeed who undertake to make that comprehensible by Reason which at the same time they acknowledge to be incomprehensible It is to be hoped this Considerer does a little mistake them Men may be-believe the Trinity to be an Incomprehensible Mystery and yet speak of it in words which may be understood which does not pretend to make the Mystery comprehensible but to deliver it from Nonsense Jargon and Heresy that is not to explain the Mystery which is and will be a Mystery still but to secure the true Christian Doctrine of the Trinity which they desire may continue an Article of the Christian Faith still There are he tells us a third sort of men who are for no Mystery that is the
those Heresies which the Catholick Church condemned and from the Corrupted Remains of the Ancient Faith which appeared in them For these Hereticks were originally Christians and professed themselves Christians and therefore did not wholly renounce the Christian Faith but grafted their Heresies on it As to confine my self to the Subjâ—ct of the present Dispute What we are to understand by Father Son and Holy Ghost Whether Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons or not each of whom is distinctly by himself True and Perfect God but in the Unity of the same Divine Nature and Godhead Now that this was the received Faith of the Catholick Church we may learn both from the Valentinians Sabellians and Arians Though the Valentinians as I observed before had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity either with the Platonick Philosophy as that it self had been corrupted by the Iunior Platonists or with the Pagan Theology yet the Propagation of their Aeons in different Degrees and Descents from the first Supreme Aeon the Unbegotten One and the Invisible and Incomprehensible Father as they stile him shews what they thought the Catholick Faith was concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Spirit which they took to be a Substantial Generation and Procession and accordingly in imitation of this Faith asserted a Substantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Emanation of one Aeon from another and which is more none of the Ancient Fathers who wrote against this Heresy as far as I have observed ever quarrel with them upon this account Nay Tertullian though he abominates these Heresies owns this Probole or Emanation in a true Catholick Sense and tells us that these Hereticks borrowed this word from the Catholick Faith though they fitted it to their Heresy And challenges any man to say whether the Divine Word be not produced by the Father and if it be Here says he is the Prolation or Emanation which the true Catholick Faith owns And adds That the fault of this Heresy was not their producing one Aeon from another but that besides the number of their fictitious Aeons they did separate these Emanations and Aeons from their Author that the Aeons knew not the Father nay desired to know him but could not know him and was e'en dissolved with Passion and Desire whereas in the Catholick Faith there is the most Inseparable Union of the Son with the Father and the most Intimate and Perfect Knowledge of him So that Tertullian allows of a Real and Substantial Production of the Person of the Son from the Person of the Father as the Valentinians pretended of their Aeons and asserts that these Hereticks learnt this from the Catholick Faith of the Trinity And that the Church must not reject this Probole Prolation or Emanation in an Orthodox Catholick Use of those words because Hereticks abuse them to countenance their own Heresies As for the Noetians and Sabellians for however they explain the Doctrine of the Trinity whether by Three Names or Three Powers or Three Parts while they Teach That the One God is but One Single Person the Heresy is the same it is impossible the Catholick Church should reject this Heresy without asserting Three Distinct Real Substantial Persons in the Unity of the Godhead each of whom is as True and Perfect God as each of Three Men Peter Iames and Iohn is a True Perfect Distinct Man though these Three Men are not uniâ—ed as the Three Divine Persons are The occasion of this Heresy was That they thought that Three Real Distinct Persons in the Godhead were Three Gods and therefore though being profess'd Christians and consequently baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost they durst not deny Father Son and Holy Ghost yet neither would they own Three Divine Persons but turned them into Three Names or Three Parts of One Person which has much more sense in it than Three Modes though Three Modes of the same Person let them call them Three Personalities if they please is the same Heresy if there be but One Suppositum as One Man may be the Subject of Three or Three and twenty Modes and be but One Human Person still Noetus and Sabellius did certainly apprehend that by Father Son and Holy Ghost the Catholick Church understood Three Distinct Substantial Divine Persons or else why should they charge them with Tritheism upon this account and turn Three Persons into Three Names or Three Parts of One and the same God to avoid the Imputation of Three Gods And if this had not been the belief of the Catholick Church what meant their Zeal against this Heresy For all the Wit of Man can't find a Medium between Sabellianism and Three Divine Substantial Persons A Trinity must be Three Somewhats as it has been lately called and then it must either be One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Three Modes or compounded of Three Parts or be Three Distinct Suppositums and Persons Now if this had been the Catholick Faith That the Trinity is but One Suppositum or Person under Three Names or Modes c. I cannot imagine why the Catholick Church should have quarrell'd with these Hereticks or they with the Catholick Church unless they both mistook one another But if the Sabellians and Catholicks understood themselves and each other and did intend to contradict each other we certainly know what the Catholick Faith was For there is nothing contradicts a Noetian and Sabellian Trinity but a Trinity of Distinct Substantial Divine Persons And Novatianus well observes That these Hereticks did acknowledge the Divinity of Christ That whoever Christ was it was evident from those Characters given of him in Scripture That he was True and Perfect God And because the Father is True and Perfect God and Christ True and Perfect God for fear of owning Two Gods they make the Father and the Son to be but One and the same Person The Arians denied the Eternal Godhead of Christ and made a Creature of him though the most excellent Creature the Minister and Instrument of God in making the World and the reason of this Heresy was the same viz. for fear of a Plurality of Gods should they allow Christ to be True and Perfect God And this still is a plain evidence what they thought the Catholick Faith to be not only that Christ was True and Real God but that he was Truly and Really a Distinct Person from God the Father so distinct that if they should acknowledge him to be True God he would be a Second God which they thought contradicted the Faith of One God Well Though they would not own him to be True God yet they own him to be a distinct Person from the Father as distinct as God and a Creature are distinct Do the Catholicks now quarrel with the Arians that they have made a Substantial Person of the Son as in reason tâ—ey ought to have done had thâ—y not believed
found a Trinity but it is not a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature but a Trinity of extrinsecal accessory Ideas But since he has used some Art in palliating this Heresy it will be necessary to take off the Disguise The first step he makes to it is by seeming to own That there may be some greater Mystery and Obscurity in the Doctrine of the Trinity than that Account which he has given of it But if this Account says he of the Trinity be too easy and falls far short of those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture as I think it does and no other grounded upon any Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction can be true or consistent as I have before particularly proved then it necessarily follows That God must be One and Three in some way or manner not conceivable by human Vnderstanding Here he thinks he has found a safe Retreat He asserts and proves as he would have us believe from all the Notions of Distinction and Unity which our minds can frame That God is and can be One in no other Notion than of One single Person in the first and proper sense of a Person for an Intelligent Person and that God neither is nor can be Three in the sense of Three Proper Distinct Persons If you charge him with Sabellianism for this then he retreats to an obscure confused knowledge to such a way and manner of God's being One and Three as is not conceivable by human Understanding Well But will he allow us with this obscure and confused knowledge to believe the Holy Trinity to be Three Divine Proper Distinct Persons and One God in a way and manner unconceivable by Human Vnderstanding By no means This he has proved by all the Notions of Unity and Distinction cannot be true or consistent nor is it possible for us to believe what we do not understand the terms of or what contradicts our former knowledge and we are not bound to believe what is not possible to be believed nor can God in Justice or Goodness require such a Faith of us as we have already heard So that Sabellianism we may believe and must not believe any thing contrary to it and then we may believe that there is something more in it than we understand if we please And therefore we may observe That he is not concerned about any difficulties in the Notion of the Divine Unity which all Catholick Writers have been most concerned for how to reconcile the Unity of God with a Trinity of Divine Persons but that which troubles him most is the Distinction which the Catholick Fathers never disputed about but positively asserted in the most proper and real sense against the Sabellian Hereticks But he seems sensible as well he may be that the Sabellian Notion of Persons falls very short of those high Expressions of Distinction which are found in Scripture And here it is that he allows of an obscure and confused Knowledge When he has rejected a True Personal distinction all other kinds of distinction he can think of will not answer those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture and therefore provided you do not believe them distinct Persons you may believe if you please that there is some other unknown and unconceivable distinction between them This is plainly what he means by his obscure confused Knowledge by his general confused Faith by his general confused Notion of the Trinity and therefore he religiously keeps to that form of words That One and the same God is Three which must be understood in his Notion of One and the same God that is One single Person for all his Notions of Vnity and Distinction are on purpose designed to prove That One God can't be Three in a true and proper Notion of a Person and therefore he never so much as names that question How Three Divine Persons are One God Which can never be reconciled to a Sabellian Unity of a Single Person SECT VI. What it is the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity THE Considerer having laid the Foundations of Sabellianism in his Natural Sentiments proceeds to examine what the Doctrine of the Scripture is concerning this matter and to reconcile the Scripture to his Natural Sentiments though the more reasonable and safer way had been first to have learnt the Faith from Scripture and then to have corrected the Mistakes of his Natural Sentiments by Scripture I do not intend to enter into a long dispute with him here but shall only let the Reader see what it is he would prove and what he asserts for his whole business in short is to prove That the Sabellian Notion of the Unity of God or of One single Person and of Three Names Titles Characters extrinsecal Respects and Relations is the True Scriture Doctrine of the Trinity This he very freely tells us That the Sum of all that the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach concerning a Trinity is this That there is but One only God and what he means by One only God we have often heard the Author and Maker of all things But that One God ought to be acknowledge and adored by us under those Three different Titles or Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost Which Words are very remarkable He does not say That this One God is to be acknowledged and adored in Three who have the same One Divinity subsisting whole and perfect and distinctly in each of them which is the Catholick Faith But this One God is to be acknowledged and adored by us under these Three different Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that Father Son and Holy Ghost are not the One God for neither of them is God but they are only the different Titles and Characters of the One God And though God when represented by different Characters is God still under each Character yet neither of the Characters is God no more than the Titles and Characters of a Man is the Man Now one might have expected that the Considerer should have proved That the Scripture-Notion of One God is That there is but One single Divine Person in the true and proper Notion of the word Person who is God and that these Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost do not in Scripture signify Three Distinct Real Persons but are only Three Different Titles and Characters of the same One Divine Person This indeed had effectually proved what he pretends to but he was too wise to attempt either The first he says nothing at all of but takes it for granted that he has demonstrated That by his Natural Notions of Unity and Distinction but had he not first demonstrated that nothing could be true and consistent and that God can require us to believe nothing which contradicts his Natural Notions he should have a little enquired what the Notion of Scripture is about this matter But taking it for granted that he
Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names of that One single Person who is God But as he proceeds if we allow that these terms Father Son and Holy Ghost are all applied to God in Scripture 't is not thought sufficient to say That these are Three several Names which signify God but we are further required to believe That God is One and Three the same God not the same single Person but Three different Hypostases or Persons and that one of these Three Hypostases or Persons is both God and Man These are the Hard Sayings which puzzle some mens understandings This is the Faith of the Catholick Church and will always be Hard Sayings to Sabellian Understandings which they will never be able to reconcile with their Hypothesis of One single Person in the Godhead But let us hear how he clears himself of these difficulties He observes in the first place That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost are applied to God in Scripture in a different way from what any of his other Names are So far he is in the right but what is this different way In short it is this That the other Names of God signify only partial Conceptions of the Divine Nature such as Self-existence Power c. and are all contained within the same Idea of God and therefore cannot be the foundation of any distinction in the Godhead Let this pass But each of these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost includes the whole Idea we have of God and something more as being extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and the whole Idea of God full and compleat before the application of these terms Let us examine this first He says Each of these Names includes the whole Idea of God I beseech you how can that be when they signify something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and the whole Idea of God may be conceived full and compleat without them For if these Names are not included in the Idea of God which is full and compleat without them which Assertion by the way overthrows the whole Christian Faith of the Trinity how can they include the Idea of God in them which they are not so much as any part of much less the whole and something more I grant the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost may connote the Idea of God as the Name of a King and a Father connote the Idea of a Man who is King and Father which I suppose is all he intends by it but then the King must be a Man and the Father must be a Man to connote the Idea of Man And thus in the Blessed Trinity if these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost connote the Idea of God the Father must be True and Perfect God and the Son must be True and Perfect God and the Holy Ghost must be True and Perfect God for neither Father Son or Holy Ghost connote the Idea of God upon any other account than as the Whole and Perfect Divine Nature subsists in each of them and that makes the whole Idea of God belong to each of them To proceed He tells us That though all these Names are separately and together affirmed of God yet each of them in so peculiar a manner that there are several occasions where when one of these terms is used with relation to God 't would be improper to use either of the other That is when it is proper to call God Father it is improper to call him Son or Holy Ghost and so on the contrary But the reason of this in his Hypothesis is not that their Persons are distinct and incommunicable but that there are several occasions which make such change of Names improper As a Man who is a King a Husband and a Father all these Names do separately and together belong to him but you must have a care of speaking improperly by applying these Names to improper Relations Well however From hence he says it follows that these Three Names of God Father Son and Holy Ghost must denote a Threefold difference of distinction belonging to God I grant it makes a distinction of Names and external Offices and Relations in God but no distinction of Hypostases and Persons which was the distinction to be shewn but this he absolutely rejects for it must be no other difference or distinction but such as is consistent with the Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature This we would all subscribe to did he mean honestly but his Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature is nothing else but the Unity and Simplicity of One single Person and all the distinction he will allow these different Names to make is no more than what One single Person is capable of For each of these Names includes the whole Idea we have of God and something more Very right if we allow these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost to be the Names of true and proper Divine Persons for then each of them is true and perfect God and the whole Idea of God is included in each of them because the whole Divine Nature is in each of them otherwise neither of these Names include the Idea of God but only connote it as I have already observed And what he adds That as far as these Names express the Nature of God they all adequately and exactly signify the same is very true also if by the same he means the same Nature not the same One single Person And then what he adds 'T is the additional signification which makes all the distinction between them is very true also but he ought to have told us what this additional signification this something more than the whole Idea of God is which is included in these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost and then we might have known what this distinction is All the additional signification that I know of is this That Father signifies God includes the whole Idea of God but besides this Father when it signifies God signifies a Self-originated Unbegotten God who is God of himself and begets a Son of his own Nature and Coeternal with himself Son signifies God but begotten God God of God the living and perfect Image of his Father Holy Ghost signifies God but God proceeding eternally from Father and Son in the Unity and Perfection of the same Divine Nature And this is all the difference between them not a difference of Nature but a distinction of True Real Proper Persons The Considerer seems to allow this That Person is a proper Name for this distinction For Father Son and Holy Ghost have plainly a Personal significatiâ—n each of them without any figure of speech being determined to signify some Intelligent Being acting in such a manner as is there related These Words would betray an Unwary Reader to believe the Considerer as Orthodox as the Nicene Fathers and that he did acknowledge Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Three Persons without a Figure as a
Person signifies an Intelligent Being but he has secured himself against this Imputation by an artificial addition some Intelligent Being acting in such or such a manner He will not allow Person to signify absolutely an Intelligent Being but an Intelligent Being with respect to some peculiar manner of acting and thus One single Person in the proper Notion of Person for an Intelligent Being may sustain Three Persons or Personal Characters with reâ—pect to extrinsecal Relations and the different manner of acting The whole Mystery and Sophistry of this is That God who is One single Person is upon different accounts sometimes called the Father sometimes the Sâ—n and sometimes the Holy Ghost and therefore Father Son and Holy Ghost have a Personal signification each of these Names signify Person in a proper sense that is the Person of God but all of them separately and together signify but One and the same single Person for they are all of them attributed to God and God is but One or One Person though this One proper Person may sustain Three figurative Persons or Personal Characters This is plain dealing and this is his Answer to his first Hard Saying That God is One and Three the same God but Three different Hypostases or Persons That God is One and the same single Person under Three Personal Characters which may be called Three Persons because each of them signifies the True and Proper Person of God And here we see in what sense these Gentlemen allow That each Person is Substance is Mind and Spirit and yet that God is but One Substance One Mind and Spirit viz. in the very same sense that this Author affirms that God is but One single Person and yet that the Father is a Person the Son a Person and the Holy Ghost a Person and for the same reason that they decry and abhor Three Substances Three distinct Minds and Spirits in the Godhead though affirmed to be indivisibly and inseparably One Infinite Substance Mind and Spirit for the same reason they reject Three Intelligent Substantial Persons though our Modern Sabellians have been more cautious generally than this Considerer not to own it in express words Now as for these Terms of Three Substances and Three Minds there may be good reason to let them alone tho when rightly explained no reason to condemn them of Heresy but we must insist on Three Distinct Infinite Intelligent Substantial Persons Each of which is Mind and Substance and One is not the Other If they disown this as the Considerer does they are downright Sabellians if they own it we have no farther Dispute about this matter Let us now consider his other Hard Saying That One of these Three Hypâ—stases or Persâ—ns should be both God and Man Now the Hardness of this Saying is not That it is hard to prove from Scripture that so it is or that it is hard to conceive how God and Man can be united which is all that he touches on But it is and always will be a Hard Saying to the Considerer upon another account that is To reconcile it with a Trinity of One proper single Person and Three Personal Characters The Doctrine of the Incarnation is this That the Eternal Son of God became True and Perfect Man by taking the Human Nature into a Personal Union to himself That the Son only became Man not the Father nor the Holy Ghost That two perfect distinct Natures the Divine and Human Nature were without Confusion united in the One Person of Christ and that this One Person is the Eternal Word and Son of God Now if there be but One single Person in the Godhead and Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Personal Characters of this One single Person How can the Son be Incarnate and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost It is only a Person that can be Incarnate for a Personal Character can't be Incarnate without the Person and if there be but One single Person and this same One Person is Father Son and Holy Ghost it is impossible that that Person who is the Son should be Incarnate but the Person who is the Father and the Holy Ghost must be Incarnate also because the same Person who is the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost The short Question is this Whether a True Proper Divine Person was Incarnate in the Incarnation of Christ If not then Christ was not a Divine Person how Divine soever he might be upon other accounts the Divine Nature did not persâ—nally subsist in him he was not personally True and Perfect God and then the Person of Christ was no more than a Man whatever Divine Influences he might receive from God But if the Divine Nature were truly and properly Incarnate in the Person of Christ then if there be but One single Divine Person in the Godhead but One Divine Nature in the sense of One single Person then the whole Godhead Father Son and Holy Ghost which are but One True and Proper Person was Incarnate in Christ. This is the true difficulty and he is so wise as to take no notice of it It does not appear to me that he believes one word concerning the Incarnation of God or of a True Divine Person he says He that is in Scripture called the Son of God did appear in the likeness of men He certainly was a True Man but that is not our present dispute Was he in his own Person True and Perfect God Was he a Human Person or the Person of the Son of God appearing in Human Nature He was he says in the Form of God before he took the Nature of Man upon him This sounds well but why does he not speak out and tell us what this Form of God is Whether the True Divine Nature subsisting in him a True Divine Person Well But God did suffer himself to be worshipped and adored in and by the Man Christ Iesus the least that can be inferred from which is That God was more immediately and peculiarly present in Christ than ever he was said to have been any where else as in the Heavens the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims in Prophets and Holy Men who spake as they were moved by the Spirit Now all this might have been spared would he but have said That the Person Iesus Christ was worshipped with Divine Honours as being in his own Person True and Perfect God as well as Man and without saying this he says nothing to prove that Christ is the Son of God Incarnate To say That God did suffer himself to be worshipped in and by the Man Christ Iesus as he was worshipped in the Heavens in the Jewish Temple between the Cherubims for that must be the force of the Comparison does no more prove Christ to be God than it proves the Heavens the Iewish Temple and the Cherubims to be God It may prove a more perfect symbolical Presence of God in Christ which he calls the Fulness
distinct Persons for if they be Two Persons then the Son is as True and Real a Person as the Father is This I have already taken notice of and need not now repeat it only I cannot but observe what Athanasius tells us of these Hereticks That when they were convinced by the plain Evidence of Scripture that God the Father and Christ who called himself the Son of God were Two Persons they then took Courage and owned Christ to be a Person but not a Divine Person as the Eternal Word of God but only a Human Person as he was Man But Athanasius tells them That this was neither better nor worse than the Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus or what we now call Socinianism to make Christ a mere Man for he can be no more if the Divine Word which St. Iohn tells us was Incarnate be not the Person If the Word Incarnate be the Person then Christ is God-Man if the Man be the Person he can be no more than a Man This Athanasius confutes at large and proves That what Christ says of himself cannot belong to a mere Man But that which I would observe is this That both these Hereticks who denied the Divine Word to be a Person and Athanasius and the other Catholick Fathers who affirmed him to be a Person agreed very well in the Notion of a Person viz. That a Person is a distinct intelligent Being who does really and actually subsist and subsists distinctly from all other intelligent Beings That the Divine Word in the Godhead is such a Person as a Man is in Human Nature Such a Person these Hereticks would allow Christ to be considered as a Man and such a Person Athanasius affirms Christ to be considered as God or the Divine Word for otherwise they wrangle about words and do not oppose each other The Fathers proved That Christ was a Person and a distinct Person from the Father by those Texts which represent him as speaking to and of his Father and which attribute many Personal Acts to him The Sabellians could not deny but that these were Personal Acts and did prove Christ to be a real subsisting Person but then would not allow the Word to be the Person but only the Man Christ Jesus to be the Person The Fathers on the other hand allow their Notion of a Person which is the only true intelligible Notion but prove That the Divine Word which was Incarnate not merely the Man Christ Jesus was this Person and therefore that this Divine Word is a real substantial subsisting Word not like the Word of a man which is a transient Act but has no subsistence of its own The Sabellians would have allowed a Trinity of Persons in any other Notion of a Person than as a Person signifies a real subsisting intelligent Being but the Catholick Fathers would own no other Notion of Person but this and taught that there were Three Persons in the Trinity in the same sense in which the Sabellians denied there were Three Persons Three such Persons as they affirmed there was but One that the Son and Holy Ghost were Divine Persons in the same sense that the Sabellians owned the Father to be a Person that is Three such Persons as they called Three Gods The reason of this I 'm sure is not to be answered That if the Catholick Fathers understood what they did when they opposed the Sabellians who made the Divine Word only to be the Word of a Divine Person but not a Divine Person himself they must assert the Divine Word in a strict and proper sense to be a Divine Person and not merely the transient Word of a Person which has no subsistence which is a more sensible Argument than all the Criticisms about Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet they express themselves so fully and clearly in this matter that there is no need of guâ—ssing at their meaning Tertullian reduces this Dispute to this one single Question which is the true state of it whether the Son and Word of God considered as distinct from God the Father be a Substance and has a Subsistence of his own Which he expresly affirms and offers his reasons for the Proof of it This he tells us is necessary to make the Word a real Being and Person Res Persona that he have a real Substance and a Substance of his own proper to himself per Substantioe proprietatem without which he cannot be Second to God nor the Father and the Son God and his Word be Two Now for the Son and the Word to be a substantial Being per proprietatem Substantioe by a Substance proper to himself as distinguished from God the Father must signify That the Personal Substance of the Son is not the same but a distinct Substance from the Personal Substance of God the Father so distinct that the Father and Son are Two Persons in the same sense and notion that the Father is One Person In answer to their Objection That the Word of God was but like the Word of a Man which was nothing else but a Voice and Sound a Vibration of the Air which conveyed some Notions to the Mind but was it self Emptiness and Nothing without any Substance of its own he answers That God himself is the most real and perfect Substance and therefore whatever proceeds from or is begotten of his Substance must be a real substantial Being much less can the Son and Word who gave Being to all other Substances be an insubstantial Nothing himself For tho there may be equivocal Causes which may produce things of a different nature from themselves yet nothing can produce nothing He argues farther That this Word is called the Son of God and God The Word was with God and the Word was God And that Word which is the Son of God and himself God can't be an insubstantial Nothing unless God himself be Nothing If God begets a Son he must be a substantial Person as all Creature-Sons are much more the Son of God And such a Son who is himself God must have all the Reality and Perfections which belong to the Notion of God But he argues farther from what St. Paul tells us That he was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God In Effigie in the Image of God Now says he in what Image of God was he Certainly in another but not in none The meaning of which is That every Person as a Person has his own Personal Image but thus he was not the Personal Image of the Father because he was not the same Person with the Father but yet if he was the Image of God he must be his True Substantial though not his Personal Image the true living Image of his Father's Person but not his Person He seems indeed in what follows to have entertained too gross and corporeal imaginations of the Substance and Image of God but this was his own Mistake and
Persons but attribute true and perfect Divinity only to the Father and make the Son a Creature though the most excellent Creature made before the World and as like to God as any Creature can be and the Minister of God in making the World This Heresy was condemned by the first general Council assembled at Nice and if we would understand the Nicene Creed we must expound it in opposition to the Arian Heresy without running into the other Extreme of Sabellianism And therefore when we are taught to believe in One Lord Iesus Christ the Only begotten Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of very God begotten not made being of One Substance with the Father by whom all things were made Wemust understand a Son who is a distinct Person from his Father as the Arians allowed him to be but not a made or created Son as they taught but a Son by Nature begotten of his Father's substance and that not in Time but from all Eternity and therefore not a Creature but God by Nature true and perfect God as God of God begotten of God and therefore of One Substance with the Father not in the Sabellian sense as One Substance is One Person but as One Substance signifies the same Nature in opposition to the Arians who made him not only a distinct Person but of a different Nature like his Father but not the same not of the substance of his Father but a new created Substance made out of nothing as all other Creatures are The opposition of this Creed to the Arian Heresy is certainly the best way of expounding it and then we find nothing in it but the true ancient Catholick Faith of the real distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence But the present Inquiry is What is the true Notion of the Homousion or One Substance of Father and Son and besides that positive account the Fathers give us of it we may learn this from those false Glosses and Interpretations which they reject and those Rules they give for the expounding these words SECT I. The true Sense of the Homoousion from those Misrepresentations which were made of it and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections 1. FIrst then Let us consider what Misrepresentations were made of this disputed word Consubstantial by the Enemies of the Catholick Faith and what Answers the Fathers gave to such Objections St. Hilary mentions three in the beginning of his 4 th Book of the Trinity and I shall consider them in the Order in which he sets them down 1. The first is that this word Homoousion or Consubstantial is no better than Sabellianism that it makes the Father and the Son to be but One by One singular Substance which being Infinite extended it self into the Virgin 's Womb and taking a Body of her in that Body took the Name of Son and thus they say some former Bishops understood it and is therefore to be rejected as Heretical which as he adds is the first misrepresentation of the Homoousion Thus he observes in his Book de Synodis that the Fathers in the Council of Antioch which condemned Paulus Samosatenus did also reject the Homoousion because Paulus thereby understood the singularity of the Divine Nature and Substance which destroys the real personal distinction between Father and Son and adds that the Church though it retained the word Homoousion still rejects that sense of it as profane The Learned Dr. Bull notwithstanding St. Hilary's Authority can't believe that either Paulus or Sabellius did upon choice own the Homoousion but only put a forced and unnatural sense of it to favour their Heresies and seems to have very good reason on his side but that is not the present question How perversly soever Hereticks understood this word the Nicene Fathers rejected this sense as profane and heretical Now if One Substance does not signify One singular Substance in the Sabellian Notion of it which leaves only a Trinity of Names or Modes instead of a Trinity of Persons then Three consubstantial Persons must signisy Three substantial Persons who have the same Nature and Essence but not the same singular Substance And St. Basil tells us that this is the proper acceptation of the word Homoousion which is directly opposed to the Sabellian as well as to the Arian Heresy as it destroys the Identity of Hypostasis and gives us a complete and perfect Notion of distinct Persons for the same thing is not consubstantial to it self but to another that there must be another and another to make two that are consubstantial Another Objection against the Homoousion was this That to be consubstantial or of One Substance signifies the communion of Two in some other thing which is in order of Nature before them both as if there were some prior Substance or Matter of which they both did partake so as to have the whole Substance between them which makes them consubstantial or of one Substance both partaking of the same Being Nature or Substance which was before them both and therefore they rejected the Homoousion because it did not preserve the relation between the Son and the Father and made the Father later than that Substance or Matter which is common to him with the Son This also St. Hilary tells us the Church rejects and abominates for nothing can so much as in thought be before the Substance of the Father and the relation between Father and Son signifies to beget and to be begotten not to be both made of the same Substance A third Reason they assigned against this word Homoousion was this That to be Consubstantial or of One Substance in the strict and proper acceptation of these words signifies that the generation of the Son is by the division of the Father's Substance as if he were cut out of him and One Substance divided into Two Persons and so Father and Son are of One Substance as a part cut out of the whole is of the same nature with that from whence it is taken This was objected against the Homoousion in the time of the Nicene Council while this word was under debate which Socrates gives a more particular account of The reason those Bishops who refused to subscribe to the Nicene Faith gave against the Homoousion was this That that only can be said to be Consubstantial which is of another either by division or by efflux and emanation or by prolation or eruption by eruption as the branches sprout out of the root by efflux according to the manner of human generations by division as the same mass of Gold may be divided into two or three golden Cups but the Son is of the Father neither of these ways and therefore they rejected this Faith and ridiculed the Homoousion For this very reason Eusebius of Caesarea was for some time in suspense about the
begotten of his Fathers Substance the Son of God who in his own proper Person is true and perfect God not a part of God but all that God is not One God as One Person with the Father but as having the true Divine Nature distinctly in his own Person This is a Demonstration that the Nicene Consubstantiality is the Consubstantiality of Two real substantial Persons who have the same Nature distinctly subsisting in each of them 2 Another Rule for expounding the Homoousion is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are equipollent terms that to be of one Substance and to be in all things alike to each other signify the same thing I know the Fathers condemned the Arian Homoiousion for they asserted That the Son was like the Father in opposition to his being of the same Nature with the Father and therefore this was an imperfect likeness and resemblance or indeed no likeness at all for a created and uncreated Nature are at such an infinite distance as to have no true and real likeness to each other to be sure not such a likeness as there must be between a Son and a Father Nay sometimes they would not allow that likeness can be properly applied to two individual Natures of the same species as to two individual human Natures which are not like to each other but are the same But yet whether it was proper or improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be upon all accounts and every way perfectly alike was allowed to be very Orthodox and therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis approves several Oriental Creeds as very Orthodox though they left out the Homoousion because they in the most express terms confessed the perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Father and Son which they guarded with the utmost Caution against the perverse Interpretations both of the Sabellian and Arian Hereticks And he disputes at large That perfect similitude is a sameness and equality of Nature and calls God to witness that before he ever heard of those words Homoousion and Homoiousion he always thought that what is signified by both these words is the same that perfect likeness of Nature is the sameness of Nature for nothing can be perfectly alike which has not the same Nature And this he says he learnt from the Evangelists and Apostles before ever he heard of the Nicene Faith which he had not heard of till a little before he was banished for that Faith This observation is of great use as St. Hilary notes to confute Sabellianism and to fix the true sense of the Homoousion for if to be Consubstantial or of one Nature signifies a perfect likeness similitude and equality of Nature Consubstantiality must at least signify Two who are thus consubstantial as likeness similitude and equality does and these Two must have One and the same Nature not in the sense of Singularity and Sabellian Unity but of likeness and similitude that Father and Son are One Substance not as One Person is One with himself but as Two Persons are One by a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature which must be the true meaning of Consubstantial if Consubstantiality and likeness of Nature be the same 3. I observe farther That the Catholick Fathers did not make the Homoousion the Rule of Faith that whatever sense some critical Wits can put on it must therefore be owned for the Catholick Faith but they chose it as the most comprehensive word to comprize the true Catholick Faith and to detect the Frauds of Hereticks They taught no new Faith by this word but what the Catholick Church had always taught but secured the Faith by it against the shifts and evasions of Hâ—reticks This is the defence they made to the Arian Objection That it was an unscriptural word they confessed the word Homoousios was not to be found in Scripture but the Faith expressed by that word was Thus St. Austin answers Pascentius and tells us That Christ himself has taught us the Homoousion where he says I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and my Father are One and expounds this of the Unity Dignity and Equality of Nature And adds That it is not the word but the thing signified by that word which is so terrible to Hereticks and if they would dispute to purpose they must not reject the word but the doctrine it contains And thus Laurentius who presided in that Dispute gives judgment in this Controversy That the Homoousion was not the Name of the Christian Faith but signified the Equality of the Trinity and that though this word be not in Scripture yet the thing signified by it is true and we must believe honourably of the Unity lest we injure the Trinity We may find enough to this purpose in Athanasius De Decret Syn. Nic. and elsewhere of which more presently And therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis which he wrote to some Catholick Bishops who were very Orthodox in the Faith and yet doubted of this word Homoousion tells them That they are to consider what the Synod intended by that word and not reject the word unless they rejected the Faith taught by it and would profess those Arian Doctrines which the Council condemned in it This is the constant language of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers when the Dispute is concerning the use of this word which gives us this certain Rule for expounding the Homoousion that we must understand it in no other sense than what the Nicene Fathers intended by it for if we do we may acknowledge the Homoousion and yet deny the Nicene Faith What they taught by this word that we must own and what they rejected by it we must reject And though we may fancy that this word signifies more than what the Nicene Fathers understood by it as we have heard what perverse Senses the Hereticks fixt on it yet it being not a Scriptural but an Ecclesiastical word it must be expounded to that Sense and no other which placed it in the Creed SECT III What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion AND this brings me to a more particular Account of the Homoousion and what the Nicene Fathers understood by it Eusebius Pamphili who at first doubted about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the substance of the Father and consubstantial or of One Substance with him gives an account to his Coesareans of the Reasons which moved him afterwards to subscribe to that Form of Faith as appears by his Letter to them recorded in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History He tells them That he did not admit these words without due examination but when he found there was nothing meant by them but what was truly Catholick and Orthodox he complied for Peace sake For by the Son 's being of his Father's Substance they meant no more than
same whole And yet if he be so of the Father as not to be the Father but the Son he must be distinct in substance from the Father He is true and perfect God but he receives his Divinity by his Birth he is God of God not God who begets but God who is begotten not of nothing but of his Father's substance who is unbegotten And therefore though St. Hilary and all the Catholick Fathers with him reject all Corporeal Passions in the Divine Generation all Corporeal Desection Division Efflux or Emanation of the Divine Substance which is incorporeal and indivisible yet they all assert a true and proper generation of the Son and an impassible production and prolation of him whole of whole And St. Hilary tells us that for this reason the Arians under a specious Pretence of condemning Valentinus his Emanations and Aeons denied the prolation of the Son from the Father only to deny his generation whereas some kind of prolation is essential to the very Notion of a Birth which cannot be conceived without it and therefore we must not wholly reject all Prolation and Production of the Son from the Father but only reject all Corporeal Emanations which are very imperfect Images of Divine Mysteries and have nothing like the eternal generation of the Son but only that the Son is truly begotten of his Father's Substance This is that adorable and unsearchable Mystery of the Divine Generation The Son is truly and properly begotten receives his whole Being and Nature from his Father is substance of his Father's substance whole of whole and therefore one and the same substance with the Father not that substance which is the Person of the Father nor a new or another separate substance as it is in human generations but the nature and substance of the Father born and repeated in the Nativity of the Son as St. Hilary speaks The Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One Divinity One Infinite Eternal nature and substance but they are thrice this One substance and as perfectly and distinctly Three in this One substance as any other Three are Three substances St. Austin was certainly in the right when he asserted That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species nor the Divine Persons as Individuals and shews particularly the impropriety of each though he knows not under what Notion to conceive them but inclines most to some common matter or substance which is the same in all as carrying the nearest resemblance and analogy in it though this he does not very well like neither of which more presently It will be of great use briefly to consider this matter for the difficulty consists more in want of words to express this Unity and Distinction by than in the Notion it self The singularity of the Divine Essence and Substance in the Sabellian Notion of One Substance the Nicene Fathers universally rejected as irreconcilable with a real distinction of Persons which destroys the Faith of a Real Trinity A mere specifick Unity of Nature and Substance which is a meer Logical Notion falls short of the Natural and Essential Unity of the Godhead and yet we have no word to serve as a middle Term between the Unity of singularity and a Specifick Unity of Nature For there is no such Unity as this in Created Nature and therefore no name for it and yet the Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons is neither of these but bears some resemblance and Analogy to both As to shew this briefly The Unity of the Divine Nature is not a meer Specifick Unity A Species is only an Idea or Pattern of Nature according to which particular Creatures are formed and such Creatures as are made according to the same Pattern are specifically the same and as far as we can observe this Correspondence and Ideal Sameness of Nature so we rank them under the same Species So that there can be no Species but among created Beings for they must be all made and made according to the same Original Pattern But an Eternal and Necessary Nature was not made and therefore not made according to any Pattern nor can any other be made according to its Pattern for what is made cannot be Necessary and Eternal So that the Divine Nature can be but One and One Numerical Nature is no Species it can communicate its own Substance by an Eternal Generation and Procession but it can't be a Pattern and Idea for any other Beings of the same kind which are not its own Substance For this reason St. Austin rejects this specifick Unity he distinguishes between saying That the Divine Persons are Vna Essentia Vnius Essentiae One Essence or Substance and that they are ex Vna Essentia of One Essence The first may signify a natural Unity and must do so when applied to the Trinity The second signifies only a common specifick Nature and Unity When we speak of men we may use either expression that they are One Essence or that they are of One Essence because in both Cases when applied to Creatures One Essence signifies specifically as a common pattern of Nature according to which not only Three but many Threes may be made But the whole Divine Essence is in the Trinity and cannot subsist in any other Person and therefore is not a common specifick Nature But then there is something in the Divine Nature as substantially communicated to the Son and to the Holy Spirit which bears some analogy to a Species and to a Specifick Unity and for this reason the Catholick Fathers in their Disputes both with the Sabellians and Arians frequently express the Unity of the Nature as subsisting in Three Distinct Persons by a Specifick Unity The Notion and Idea of a Common Nature which subsists in many Individuals is called a Species the same common notion and definition belonging to all the Individuals of the same kind Now if we believe the Doctrine of a Real Trinity we must acknowledge That the same One Divine Nature which is originally in the Father is communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit and does subsist distinctly and substantially in all Three and therefore has this resemblance to a Species that it is a common Nature which has the same Notion and Definition and is the same in Three but not meerly by a Notional Identity and Sameness but by the Real Identity of Substance there being but One Divine Substance unmade uncreated unbegotten but communicated whole and entire to the Son by an eternal generation and to the Holy Spirit by an eternal Procession so that the Divine Nature is so far a Species as by its actual communication to the Son and Holy Spirit and its distinct subsistence in Father Son and Holy Ghost it is in truth and reality a common Nature and Substance which a Species is only in Notion and Idea The Notion and Definition of human Nature in
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
this Case For here when we hear of the Image of God we must conceive nothing less than the Brightness of his Glory But what is this Brightness and what is this Glory That the Apostle adds The perfect Impression or Character of his Substance And therefore Substance is the same with Glory and Character with Brightness So that the Divine Glory remaining perfect and undiminished emits a perfect Splendor and Brightness And thus the very Nature of an Image expounded as it becomes God confirms the Faith of One Divinity For the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father because such as the Father is such is the Son and such as the Son is such is the Father And thus Two are One because the Son in nothing differs as receiving no other Form or Character but that of his Father And therefore I say again One and One but an undivided Nature and never-failing Perfection And therefore there is One God because by both the same perfect Divine Form and Nature is seen wholly and perfectly subsisting in both This I think is as plain as words can make it both what St. Basil meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature and that herein he placed the Unity of the Godhead and were there any occasion for it it were easy to confirm this by the concurrent Suffrages of Athanasius Gregory Nyssen and Gregory Nazianzen St. Cyril and other Greek Fathers almost in the same words St. Hilary and St. Ambrose to name no more of the Latin Fathers are so express in placing the Unity of the Godhead in this perfect Sameness Indifference Indiversity of Nature between Father Son and Holy Ghost that there is no need of any other Art but barely to represent their Words and therefore I shall only refer my Readers to some few Quotations in the Margin It cannot be denied but that all the Fathers unanimously agree in this Account of the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three Distinct Persons Which should make modest men very cautious of charging it with a direct Contradiction to all Reason and Philosophy But Modesty and Reverence to the Catholick Fathers are none of the prevailing Virtues of this Age. But is it indeed such a Contradiction to say That the same Nature which is perfectly and in every thing the same in Three is but One Nature in Three and that such Three have not Three Natures but One Nature Is it such a direct Contradiction to Sense and Reason to say That there is alius alius alius in the Trinity but not aliud That there is Another and Another and Another Person in the Holy Trinity but that there is nothing in any One of these Persons which can be called Another thing from what is in the other Two This is so far from a Contradiction that it seems plain Sense nay plain Demonstration to me That Three Persons who have nothing in themselves but what each of them have without the least conceivable Variation are in Nature but one and the same and though each of them be Another Person yet not Another Thing or Another Nature There are several Examples in Nature which justify this distinction between alius aliud and must make all thinking men confess that they cannot speak properly without it I would not be mistaken in this matter and therefore desire the Reader carefully to observe That I do not alledge these Instances which follow as Resemblances of the Trinity but only as Examples of a perfect Sameness and Unity in Nature where we must confess That the thing is but One and the same and yet that there is Another and Another And if there be any Images of this in Nature there is no reason to call this a Contradiction in the Faith of the Trinity Let me then ask this plain Question When Five hundred Men hear the same Man speak do they all hear one and the same Voice or Five hundred Voices It will I think be granted that it is but one and the same Voice which they all hear and yet it is heard five hundred times and is distinctly in five hundred Ears The Voice is essentially one and the same in all and yet no man dares deny that the Voice in Peter's Ear is another from that Voice which is in Iohn's Ear and therefore is Another and Another but not Another Thing And were a Voice Essence and Substance there would be One Nature Essence and Substance in a Plurality of Hypostases Thus Sight furnishes us with as many Examples of this as Hearing When five hundred Men see the same thing the Object is one and the same and yet is Another and Another according to the number of the Persons who see it Is one and the same in Nature and subsists the same and yet distinctly in each eye Sight and Hearing approach nearest to an Incorporeal Nature and therefore give us the nearest Resemblances of a Spiritual Sameness Unity and Distinction But we have still more perfect Images of this in what is more perfectly Spiritual The same Notion and Idea though it subsist in Ten thousand Minds is perfectly the same in all A perfect true Idea of any thing is and can be but One and therefore how many Minds soever it subsist in it must be one and the same in all but yet the Idea in the Mind of Peter is not the same in Subsistence with the Idea in the Mind of Paul It is Another and Another and yet the same Idea in Nature and Essence As suppose the perfect Idea of Humanity or Human Nature and the perfect Idea of the Divine Nature if they be true and perfect they are perfectly the same in all the Minds in the World and nothing but the different Notions men have of things can multiply such Ideas Now if we advance but one step higher we shall plainly see what this Unity of Sameness is what the true Notion of it is and how far it reaches For though this be absolutely essential to the Divine Unity yet as I have already noted and will appear more hereafter this is not the compleat and adequate Notion of it Let us suppose then that Human Nature for instance did subsist as perfectly the same in Peter Iames and Iâ—hn as the true and perfect Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in all that a Man were nothing else but the living subsisting Idea of Human Nature without the least change or variation in Nature to distinguish one from another I say in such a Case as this would not Three such Persons be perfectly one and the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sameness and Identity of Nature which would be as perfectly and invariably the same as the common Notion and Idea of Nature Would not Human Nature be as perfectly the same in Three Persons or Subsistences as the Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in Three Minds Or could we in
distinguished nor separated but is perfectly One Same Undivided Essence and therefore Vna Substantia though not Vnus Subsistens One Substance though not One but Three that subsist What I have thus briefly represented I hope I have proved in the First Chapter from the Authority of Scripture and Reason founded on Scripture And from what I have already discoursed of the Doctrine of the Fathers it may appear to careful and intelligent Readers who use such Application as this Argument deserves and requires that this is their Unanimous Sense also But yet as far as it is possible to clear this Matter more fully and vindicate the Fathers and Schools from those Obscurities Inconsistences and Contradictions which are generally charged on them in so concerning an Article I shall reassume this Matter and particularly shew 1. That what they call a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance and nothing else 2. That this Divine Essence and Substance as constituting these Divine Persons is proper and peculiar to each and incommunicable to one another and therefore that this Divine Essence and Substance as subsisting distinctly in Three is no more numerically One than their Persons are One. 3. What difference they made between Nature and Essence and Hypostasis and Person 4. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion deliver the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to 1. As for the first That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence it is and must be in some sense acknowledged by all who profess the Faith of a Real Trinity for there cannot be a Real Trinity of Divine Persons if each Person be not True and Perfect God that is the whole Divinity or Divine Nature and Essence And therefore those who assert in the strictest sense the Singularity of the Divine Essence yet assert That this One Singular Essence subsists distinctly in each Divine Person which whether it be to be understood or not yet is an acknowledgment that there is no conceiving a Divine Person without the Divine Essence But we need not be beholden to any man for this Concession for the thing is plain and evident in all Catholick Writers Petavius has very critically observed the different use of Words in Catholick Writers relating to this Venerable Mystery such as Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis Subsistence Person c. which sometimes occasioned great Misunderstandings between them and is to this day made a pretence of charging the Fathers with great Uncertainty and Obscurity and with contradicting each other and themselves This of late has been much insisted on in order to disparage the Authority of â— as Zealous Contentious Bigots who neither understood one another nor themselves nor the Catholick Faith but so confounded Terms that we can never certainly know what they meant or used such dangerous Terms that if we rely too much upon them we mâ—y easily mâ—stake Hâ—resy for the Catholick Faith Were this true our Case would be very bad but two or three Observations will set this matter in a clear light 1. That very Ambiguity which the Fathers are charged with in the use of Words does certainly prove that by a Divine Person they meant the Divine Essence Nature and Substance The plain Case is this The Catholick Fathers did universally own and profess a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God So that there was no difference in their Faith how different soever their words were The most common Terms whereby they exprest the Unity of the Godhead were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vna Esseâ—â—â—â— Vna Natura Vna Substantia One Essâ—nce One Nâ—ture One Substance and a Trinity they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Hypostates and the Latins Three Persons but sometimes we meet in undoubted Catholick Writers wiâ—â— the direct contrary Expressions such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tres Substantiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis The usual way of reconciling this seeming Contradiction is by saying That when these Fathers use such Expressions as Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances they do not understand this of Three divers or specifically different Essences Natures Substances which is Arianism but of Three Persons and when they affirm that there is but One Hypostasis they do not by One Hypostasis mean One Person which is Sabellianism but One Nature Essence or Substance As we know this very Controversy about One or Three Hypostases was thus composed in the Alexandrian Synod where Athanasius presided And no doubt but this is the true Solution since those who were neither Arians nor Sabellians could not understand such Expressions in any other sense But then the Question still remains How this Ambiguity should happen or how it comes to pass that such contradictory Terms as One Essence and Three Essences One Substance and Three Substances One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases should both be Orthodox and Catholick Now the only Account I can give of this matter is this That these Terms Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis which originally signifies Substance of which more presently may signify as the Philosopher speaks either the First or Second Substance either the common Nature which has the same notion and definition common to the whole Kind as Humanity which is the same in all Men or a Singular Subsisting Nature and Substance which in Creatures we call Individuals and in reasonable Creatures Persons Now in analogy to this common Specifick Nature which is one and the same in all its Individuals the Catholick Fathers taught but One Essence Nature Substance and in this sense but One Hypostasis in the Godhead that is a Consubstantial Trinity in analogy to the several Individuals of the same Species in whom only this common Nature did really and actually subsist they ordinarily asserted Three Hypostases sometimes as we see Three Natures and Essences and Substances in the Trinity that is Three Real Substantial subsisting Persons and in this sense Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances was accounted Catholick Doctrine St. Hilary allows Tria in Substantia or Tres Subsâ—antias Three in Substance or Three Substances for Tres Subsistentium Personas Three Subsisting Persons And St. Greg. Nyssen in answer to Eunomius who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Essences or Substances says That if he understood this distinction of Substances only in opposition to Sabellius who gave three Names to one Suppositum or Substance that not only he but all Catholick Christians assented to it His only fault being in this Case that he uses improper words Three Essences for Three Hypostases Now that which I observe from hence is this That had they not believed each Divine Person to
be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature Essence and Substance there could never have been any occasion for this Dispute about One Essence Nature Substance Hypostasis and Three Essences Natures Substances Hypostases nor for that known Distinction by which they reconciled this difference between Essence and Hypostasis that the first signifies something analogous to a Common Specifick Nature the second to Individuals If the Divine Nature subsisted in Singularity or were but One Singular Subsisting Nature Essence and Hypostasis must signify the same thing for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence is Substance and so is Hypostasis and in this sense they must both signify a first Substance and then one singular Subsisting Nature or Substance and three singular Subsisting Natures and Substances is an irreconcilable Contradiction Had the Singularity of the Divine Nature been the Catholick Faith we should never have heard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Common Nature and Essence of the Divinity for Singular and Common are express Contradictions and a Singular Subsisting Nature can have nothing thing analogous in it to a Common Specifick Nature If each Divine Person be not the Divine Nature Essence Substance there can be no Pretence that Essence and Substance should ever signify a Person nor can any Interpretation make Three Essences and Substances Catholick Doctrine if there be no sense wherein Three Persons may Orthodoxly be called Three Essences and Substances as there can't be if a Person as a Person be not Essence and Substance And on the other hand if Hypostasis which is the peculiar and appropriate Name whereby the Greek Fathers denote a Person do not signify Essence and Substance it could never be Orthodox to say that there is but One Hypostasis no more than it is to say that there is but One Person in the Trinity 2. But to set aside this Dispute concerning Three Essences Three Natures Three Substances and One Hypostasis in the Trinity which though allowed to be Catholick yet were sparingly and cautiously used because they were liable to Heretical Senses I observe farther That these words Essence Nature Substance are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity which could not be Orthodox were not each Person distinctly in himself Essence Nature Substance What I have already discoursed with relation to Sabellianism and upon several other occasions sufficiently proves this and I shall not trouble my Readers with a needless Repetition Petavius owns it and has given several Instances of it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essentia Natura Substantia do not always signify the common Essence of the Divinity but the Divine Persons that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Person of the Father and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Person of the Son which is undoubtedly true but still Essence signifies Essence and Nature Nature and Substance Substance and the only reason he has to say That in this construction the Words signify a Person is because they are used singularly and construed with the name of a Person as the Essence and Substance of the Father or of the Son But this is no reason if the Essence be not the Person if the Essence of the Fâ—ther do not signify that Essence which is the Person of the Father and the Essence of the Son that Essence which is the Person of the Son For if a Divine Person be not the Divine Essence Essence can never signify Person And yet if they do believe that each Divine Person is by himself in his own Person Essence and Substance the whole undivided Divinity I cannot imagine the reason of this Criticism why they should be more afraid to say the Essence and Substance of the Father than the Person of the Father unless it be that this does not so well agree with their Notion of the singularity of the Divine Essence as I doubt indeed it will not especially if we add the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Unbegotten and begotten Substance the one the Person of the Father the other of the Son of which more hereafter but this is not to learn our Faith from the Fathers but to expound them by our preconceived Opinions 3 dly I observe farther That all those words which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons were always used by Catholick Writers in the notion of Substance and were never thought Catholick in any other sense Hypostasis is the most received word among the Greek Fathers to signify a Person and One Essence and Three Hypostases was the Catholick Language Now it is agreed on all hands That Hypostasis literally signifies Substance and as I have already observed the only dispute about it was that some by Hypostasis understood the Common Nature and Substance in the notion of Essence and for that reason asserted That there is but One Hypostasis as there is but One Essence in the Trinity others understood a singular Subsisting Nature and Substance and in this sense asserted Three Hypostases but none of them ever understood Hypostasis in any other notion but that of Substance either a Common or Individual Substance And to prevent this Ambiguity as far as they could which might conceal very different Heresies Sabellianism on one hand and Arianism on the other and many times occasioned the Orthodox to suspect each other of these opposite Heresies though Essence and Hypostasis signified much the same thing yet they appropriated the name Essence to signify a Common Nature and Substance and Hypostasis to signify Individuals As we learn from St. Basil Greg. Nyssen Damascen and many other Catholick Writers who assign this difference between Essence and Hypostasis But yet this did not wholly silence this Dispute among the Greeks much less did it satisfy the Latin Fathers who knew no difference between Essentia Substantia but translated the Homoousion by Vnius Substantiae and therefore it was as great Heresy to them to say Three Substances as they translated the Greek Hypostases as to say Three Essences in the Trinity St. Austin professes That he knew not what the Greeks meant by One Essence and Three Substances and for the same reason it is well known St. Ierom rejected Three Substances for both by Essence and Substance they understood a Common Nature which made it Heresy indeed to assert Three Substances which in this acceptation of the word must signify Three divers Substances which specifically differ And therefore tho they did not reject the Greek Faith but did believe as heartily as they that each Person by himself was perfect Hypostasis and Substance and rejected the Sabellian One Hypostasis and One Substance yet they did not like the Phrase of Three Hypostases and Three Substances for they knew no difference between Three Substances and Three Essences and by both understood Three different Kinds and Species of Beings And for this Reason both to secure the Catholick Faith from such
a diversity and dissimilitude of Nature as Three Essences and Substances may signify and from a Sabellian Unity and Singularity they chose such words as signified a Real Perfect Subsisting Being but did not immediatly and formally signify Essence and Substance tho they did necessarily suppose and connote it Such among the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Latins subsistentia suppositum res ens Existence Subsistence Subject Suppositum Thing Being which every one sees must signify something as real as Essence and Substance and must necessarily include Essence and Substance in their very notion and that thus they were used by the Catholick Fathers Petavius proves by numerous Quotations which the Reader may consult at his leisure And though some of these words are sometimes used singularly of all Three Divine Persons in the notion of a Common Essence and Substance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 res in which sense St. Austin called the Trinity unam summam rem yet both Fathers and Schoolmen did without any scruple use them in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tres subsistentiae tres res tria supposita tria entia realia that the Divine Persons were Three Existences Three Subsistencies Three Suppositums Three Things Three Real Beings and why not then Three Essences and Three Substances since every suppositum every Thing every Real Being is Essence and Substance the reason of which is plainly this That Essence and Substance unless qualified with some limiting Adjuncts signify the formal Reasons of things and can't be multiplied without diversity whereas the other Terms signify nothing but Real and Actual Existence which does not diversify and therefore not multiply the Essence for Three Suppositums Three Subjects Three Things Three Real Beings may have One Essence Nature and Substance formally identically and invariably the same But there is some dispute about the use of those words Existence and Subsistence Petavius observes a great difference between the Ancient and Modern use of them That the Ancients used them in a Concrete Sense for Person and Substance that which does really exist and subsist as he proves by several Quotations but that the Schoolmen use them in an abstract Sense for the modifications of Substance which they call Modes which together with the Substance constitute what we call Persons of which more hereafter and this may be true as to some later Schoolmen but the more Ancient and many Modern Schoolmen retained the Old Catholick use of the words and Suarez could trace the Doctrine of Modes no higher than Durandus Peter Lombard is express in it That Three Persons are tres subsistentioe tres entes Three Subsistencies Three Beings and tres subsistentioe vel entes subsistentioe vel subsistentes Subsistencies or Beings Subsistencies or those that subsist Thus Tho. Aquinas tells us That Persons are res subsistentes subsisting things And in answer to that Objection against a plurality of Persons in the Godhead that a Person according to Boetius being rationalis naturoe individua substantia the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature if there be a plurality of Persons in the Godhead there must consequently be a plurality of Substances he tells us That Substance either signifies the Essence or the Suppositum that in this last sense it is used in the definition of a Person as appears by the addition of Individual which is what the Greeks call Hypostasis and therefore assert Three Hypostases Individual Substances as we do Three Persons but we don't use to say Three Substances by reason of the equivocal use of the word lest we should be thought to assert Three Essences in the Godhead From whence it is plain that by Three Subsistencies Tho. Aquinas understood Three that subsist Three Individual Substances in the Notion of Three distinct Suppâ—situms though not of Three different Essences for this is the true distinction he makes between Suppositum and Essence that they both signify Substance but the one signifies as Matter and the other as Form and therefore the Plurality of Suppositums of Subsistencies does not multiplâ—â—â—e Essence or Form for Three may be perfectly One in Nature and Essence but to multiply Essences to say there are Three Nâ—tures or Three Essences is to diversify them and to make Three Gods specifically and essentially different After this I need not add much concerning the Notion of Person The Ciceronian sense of this word too much in use of late wherein the same Man may be said to sustain several Persons according to his different Relations Offices and Quality has as I have observed before been rejected by all Catholick Writers as Sabellianism St. Austin generally speaking is the Text to the Master of the Sentences and He to the Schoolmen and that Father is express in it that Person is Essence and Substance that the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father From whose Authority P. Lombard concludes That Person is used in the Notion of Substance That when we say the Father is a Person the sense is the Father is the Divine Essence He observes from the same Father that the Latins used Person in the same sense that the Greeks used Hypostasis which in Latin literally signifies Substance but yet they were very cautious of saying Three Substances as the Greeks did Three Hypostases because though the Greeks distinguished between Essence and Substance that Essence expressed the formal Nature of things Substance what in Creatures we call the Matter or Suppositum yet the Latins knew no such distinction and therefore Three Substances to them was the same with Three Essences which would assert a diversity in the Divine Nature And this he shews was the only Objection St. Hierom had against Three Substances or Three Hypostases which he allowed in the Notion of Tres Personas subsistentes Three subsisting Persons but not of Three Natures or Essences and this Solution he acquiesces in That Tres Personoe sunt Tres Substantioe scilicet Tres Entes pro quo Groeci dicunt Tres Hypostases That Three Persons are Three Substances that is Three Real Beings which the Greeks call Three Hypostases And though he observes that Person may sometimes signify that Personal Property whereby one Divine Person is distinguished from another yet he will not allow us to call Three Persons Three Properties but Three Subsistencies or Three Hypostases for the Property is not the Person but only distinguishes Persons of which more hereafter And he reduces the several acceptations of Person as used in the Doctrine of the Trinity to these three 1. That it sometimes signifies the Divine Essence as it does when we speak singularly of any One Person for the Person of the Father is the Divine Essence and so of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. Subsistencies and Hypostases as when we speak in the Plural Number Three Persons are Three Subsistencies Three Hypostases but unius Essentioe of one
this as they all own for the Fathers made no scruple to say That God begat God Essence Essence Wisdom Wisdom Life Life and that the Son is begotten and only begotten God God of God Light of Light Wisdom of Wisdom and begotten Wisdom Upon these Authorities Richardus Victorinus contends earnestly that we ought in plain terms to own That Substance begets Substance and that those who deny it reject the Doctrine of all the Catholick Fathers But Peter Lombard and most other Schoolmen especially since the Council of Lateran justify themselves in this matter by saying That the Fathers intended no more in such expressions than what they themselves own though they reject that way of speaking When the Fathers taught That God begat God Essence Essence Substance Substance Wisdom Wisdom Life Life they meant no more than that the Father who is God Essence Substance Wisdom Life begat his Son who is also truly and really God Essence Substance Wisdom Life and the reason why they rather chose to say That the Father who is God and Essence and Wisdom begets the Son who is God and Essence and Wisdom c. than to say That God begets God Essence Essence Wisdom Wisdom is this Because God and Essence and Wisdom c. signify absolutely and so may multiply Gods Essences Wisdoms as when we say Man begets a Man the begotten Man is as absolutely a Man as he who begets and he who begets and he who is begotten notwithstanding their relation are two absolute Men And therefore to prevent all such mistakes and to secure the Catholick Faith of the Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums in perfect Unity without the least diversity or multiplication of Essence they attributed Active Generation to the Person of the Father and Passive Generation to the Person of the Son which proves a Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums for he who begets cannot be he who is begotten and yet preserves the Unity and Identity of the Divine Nature But how can this be if Person and Essence Suppositum and Nature be the same as it is in God For then if the Person be begotten the Essence which is that Person must be begotten also and if the Person begets the Essence must beget Now this is in some sense true and therefore the Catholick Fathers promiscuously used these terms That the Father begets a Son or God begets God or Essence begets Essence and the Schools themselves own That the Father who is God begets the Son deitatem habentem who has the Divinity the Divine Nature and Essence and has it by his Generation and Birth which in reality is the same though they thought the expression less liable to mistake For the truth of the Case is this The Schools that asserted the perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence fenced against all Expressions of an absolute signification which multiplied Natures for Two absolute Natures cannot be singularly One and therefore would not say that Nature and Essence begets or is begotten for in these Propositions the terms Nature and Essence unless qualified and restrained signify absolutely and so infer Two absolute Natures and Essences that which begets and that which is begotten and therefore they rather call this a Communication than a Generation of Nature because this last signifies relatively That which is communicated may be a Singular Nature which subsists distinctly in more than one but with a necessary relation to its Original and such a Communication does not multiply Natures but only Essential Relations And this is the difference they made between Deus Deitatem habens God and one who has the Divinity that God signifies absolutely an Absolute Independent Divinity which has no relation or communication with any other but One who has the Divinity may signify One who has it not originally and absolutely but by communication from another and in an Essential Relation to him as the Son and the Holy Spirit have which is the same Divinity in Three and but One in Three And therefore I think the Schools were very much in the right for rejecting Tres Dii Three Gods when at the same time they owned Tres Deitatem habentes Three who have the Divinity for these do not signify the same thing The first unless qualified is Polytheism the second the Christian Trinity in Unity though I confess I should not chuse to call the Father One who has the Divinity but simply God because he is absolutely and originally so and not by communication and for that reason is both in Scripture and in the Fathers eminently callâ—d God and the One God whereas the other Divine Perâ—â—â—s are the Son of God and the Spirit of God and as Teâ—â—â—â—â—ian observes never called God when joined with the Father though they are when spoken of distinctly by themselves For the same Reason the Schools forbid the use of Abstract or Subâ—tantive Terms in the Plural Number when we speak of the Dâ—vine Persons but allow of Plural Adjectives because Substantives signify absolutely and multiply Natures as well as Persons or Suppositums but Adjectives may signify relatively and multiply Persons without multiplying Natures as Three Eternals Three Omnipotents Three Infinites in a Substantive sense signify Three Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Natures as well as Persons but Three who are Eternal Omnipotent Infinite signify a Trinity of Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Persons but do not necessarily signify a Trinity of Natures since these Three may subsist in the same Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Nature and each of them have this Eternal Infinite Nature and all the same But still the difficulty remains if Person or Suppositum and Nature be perfectly the same How the Father can communicate his Nature and not his Person How there can be Three Incommunicable Persons and Suppositums and but One Nature and that communicable to more than One That thus it is and how it may be is better explained by an Example than by any words without it And I shall instance in a living substantial Image This is the true Character of the Second Person of the Trinity that he is so the Son as to be the Living Perfect Image of God as has been explained at large elsewhere as you may find in the Margin Now every man must confess that the Prototype and the Image are two distinct Incommunicable Suppositums the Prototype is not the Image nor the Image the Prototype and yet we must confess that there is and must be but one and the same Nature in both not Specifically but Identically the same for a perfect Image is and can be nothing but the same that the Prototype is the same Eternity the same Life the same Wisdom Power and Goodness but all this not Personally the same for their Persons are not and cannot be the same but identically and invariably the same or else it can't be a true and perfect Image And this makes it evident that though Person and Nature be perfectly the same
since I find some Learned Men boggle very much at the Notion of Relative Substances which are not merely the Subjects of Relations but the Relations themselves What their Objection is against this I can't tell unless they think that a Relative Substance is not True and Perfect Substance which is very far from the Notion of the Schools who attribute compleat and perfect Subsistence to these Divine Relations or Persons not as Accidents in their Subjects nor as Parts in a Whole which is their Notion of Substance and compleat Subsistence but a Relative Substance only signifies such a Substance as is not the Original but is all that it is from another which they call the Relatio Originis not merely such a Relation as is between the Cause and the Effect which is seldom a substantial subsisting Relation but the Relation between Substance and Substance when one Substance in the notion of Suppositum is wholly and perfectly derived and expressed from the other The easiest Representation of this is the relation between the Prototype or Original and its Image which is not a mere Relation of Likeness and Similitude but of Origination that the Image is taken from the Original which is the foundation of the Relation Though Two Eggs were never so perfectly alike yet One is not the Image of the Other because it is not of the Other nor its natural Representation though perfectly like it but the Image is that which results from the Object like a Face in the Glass or the Impression of a Seal and the whole Essence of such an Image as an Image is relative And it is the same case as to a living substantial Image of that Life and Substance from whence it proceeds it is as perfect Life and Substance it self as its Original or else it could not be a natural Image of Life and Substance but yet it is Relative Life and Substance Life of Life the Prototype begetting its own Image in a perfect Identity and Sameness of Nature Whole of Whole And this is the Notion of the Schools concerning Relative Substances which is intelligible enough And that this is what they mean by Relations in the Godhead or Divine Nature is as plain The Master of the Sentences tells us That these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost signify the Properties of Paternity Filiation and Procession for they are Relatives which speak a mutual respect and denote Relations which are not Accidents in God but immutably in the Persons themselves so that they are not mere relative Appellations but are Relations or Notions in the things themselves that is in the Persons And by this Argument Tho. Aquinas proves That these are real Relations and are really in God because the Father is so called from the Relation of Paternity and the Son from Filiation that were not Paternity and Filiation realiter in Deo real subsisting Relations in the Divinity it would follow That God is not really Father or Son but only according to different Conceptions which is the Sabellian Heresy And proves That these Relations in God are real because they are Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature that is the Son who proceeds from the Father in the Identity of the same Nature and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Father and Son in the Identity of the same Nature For they called both the Generation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Ghost Processions as the Greeks did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one processio intellectus the other amoris Now these real Processions are Respects in the nature of things and such Respects are real Relations for when any thing proceeds from a Principle of the same Nature both that which proceeds and that from which it proceeds must necessarily be of the same Order and therefore have a real respect to each other Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature must be related to each other in the Unity of the same Nature and must be substantial subsisting Relations for they are no other than the Persons themselves who thus proceed It is a received Conclusion in the Schools That a Relation in God is the same with the Divine Essence That Personal Relations are not reipsa distinguished either from the Persons or the Essence And Gilbertus Porretanus who taught the contrary was forced to recant in the Council of Rhemes The real Distinction of these Relations in the Unity of the Divine Nature is another avowed Doctrine of the Schools and by a real Distinction they mean a Distinction in re in the Subject and Suppositum And this they prove from the real Distinction of Persons which are distinguished only by Relations From a real Trinity which is One in Substance but multiplied by Relations relatio multiplicat Trinitatem and therefore unless these Relations be really distinguished from each other there can't be a Real but only a Notional Trinity which is Sabellianism That these Relations which constitute the Trinity are opposite Relations which require distinct Subjects as Paternity and Filiation for no man can be Father and Son to himself That these Divine Relations are real Relations and therefore must be really distinct or else they are not all real unless they be really opposed to each other which makes a real distinction and therefore there must be a real distinction in God not as to any thing absolute secundum rem absolutam which is the Divine Essence which has the most perfect and simple Unity but secundum rem relativam with respect to a Relative Being and Subsistence So that these Relations are Relative Beings Relative Subsistences and as they are sometimes called Relative Substances which are really distinct though not in Nature yet in their Suppositums not as Tâ—ree Absolute Beings which makes a distinction in Nature but as Three Real Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Nature But not â—o multiply words in so plain a Case I shall observe buâ— one thing more to this purpose and that concerns the Dispute concâ—â—ning the Number of the Divine Persons The Catholick Faith owns a Trinity or only Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead Father Son and Holy 〈◊〉 and it is the known Doctrine of the Schools That the Relation is the Person How comes it to pass then that when there are Four Relations in the Godhead Paternity Filiation Active Spiration and Procession there should be but Three Persons Now the Answer which Aquinas and others give to this Difficulty is this That it is not every Relation but only opposite Relations which constitute and distinguish Persons for more Persâ—ns are more subsisting Relations really distinct from each other but there can be no real distinction between the Divine Relations but upon account of their relative opposition And therefore two opposite Relations must belong to two Persons but such Relations as are not opposite to each other must belong to the same Person and therefore Paternity and
Terms can belong for there is no such thing in created Nature and therefore we can have no Idea of it It is abundantly sufficient in this Case that we have a clear and distinct Notion of One Substance and Three Hypostases in the Essential Unity and Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost Three subsisting Relations in One Individual Essence and Substance though when we abstractedly consider these Terms of One Substance and Three Hypostases we can form no consistent Notion or Idea of it And now let our Socinian Adversaries who talk so loud of Absurdities Contradictions Nonsense false Counting and Tritheism try their skill to make good these Charges against the Divine subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Individual Essence SECT IX A more particular Inquiry into the Difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature and Person with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech relating to the ever Blessed Trinity BUT since one Nature and Essence and Three Hypostases or Persons is the Catholick Language and necessary to guard the Faith from those Two Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism it will be necessary to consider how to apply these Ecclesiastical Terms to the Three and One in the ever Blessed Trinity And here were I so disposed I might enter into a very large and perplext Dispute but my design as far as possibly I can attain it is only to explain what the Catholick Fathers meant by these Terms and to give a plain and sensible Notion of them And after what I have already so largely discoursed concerning Nature and Hypostasis I have little more to do than to compare them together and to shew in what the Catholick Fathers placed this Distinction And as nothing is of greater consequence than rightly to understand this matter so nothing requires greater Caution nor greater Application of Mind Whosoever is conversant in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers must acknowledge it not only reasonable but necessary to distinguish between their Faith and their Philosophy Their Faith which they received srom the Scriptures and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church is plain and simple and the same in all That there is but One God who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit that Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself True and Perfect God and all but One God which is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity that they are in a true and proper Sense Three and One This is the Catholick Faith wherein they all agree but then those Philosophical Terms which the importunities of Hereticks who corrupted either the Faith of the Unity or Trinity forced them to use in the Explication of this Mystery are of a different Consideration These have not always been the same nor have all agreed in them and the wisest Men have owned great Improprieties in them all when applied to this Sacred Mystery and indeed it is impossible to be otherwise for that infinite Difference and Diversity there is between the Divine and Humane Nature nay all created Nature can never admit of any Common Terms proper to express both The most perfect Creatures bear only some imperfect Analogy and Resemblance to what we conceive of God and therefore when we apply such Words and Terms to the Divine Naturâ— as are borrowed from Creatures and we have no other we must understand them only by way of Analogy and Accommodation and when we expound such Terms as are used by the Catholick Fathers in such an accommodated Sense we must apply them no further than that particular Matter they intended to represent by them I have already shâ—wn this in several particular Passages relating to the Homoousion but now I am more particularly to consider the difference between Essence and Hypostasis and I shall only shew how the matter of fact stands what has occasioned this difficulty what the true state of the Controversy is and how we may form some sensible notion of this Distinction and if I should mistake in so nice a Point as this I hope it will be a pardonable Mistake while I make no change in the Catholick Faith and intend it only as an Essay if it be possible to silence or qualify the Dispute about words The Greek Fathers attribute all the Heresies relating to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation to this one Mistake that Essence and Hypostasis are the same for then if there be but One Essence in the Blessed Trinity there must consequently be but One Hypostasis which is Sabellianism or if there be Three Hypostases there must be Three Natures and Essences either in the Arian or Tritheistick Notion Thus with reference to the Incarnation two Natures must be two Persons or Hypostases as Nestorius taught or One Person must be but One mixt and compounded Nature too which was the Heresy of Eutyches This some Fathers thought a fundamental Error in Philosophy introduced by Aristotle who makes the first Substance which is the only true and proper Substance to be that which is predicated of no Subject nor is in any Subject that is what we call a Subsisting Individual as this Man or this Horse And therefore Theorianus observes That the Catholick Fathers understood Essence and Hypostasis in a very different sense from the Greek Philosophers that is by Essence and Substance they did not mean one singular Individuum or singular Nature and Substance as Aristotle did but a common Nature not a common Notion as Genus or Species which are Aristotle's second Substances but a common Subsisting Nature which is one and the same whole and perfect in every Individual of the same kind And what Aristotle call'd his first Substance a singular Subsisting Nature that they called Hypostasis a common Subsisting Nature with its individuating Characters and Properties It is evident some Ages past before these words Essence and Hypostasis were thus nicely distinguished or at least before this Distinction was so unanimously received for as I have already observed these Words were used very promiscuously which occasioned the Alexandrian Schism and it does not appear to me that this Distinction was setled by Athanasius and the Bishops with him in that Synod as some seem to think though soon after it generally prevailed as we may learn from St. Basil Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril of Alexandria Damascen Leontius Theorianus Theodorus Abucara Ignatius Sinaita and generally all the Catholick Writers of the Eutychian and Severian Age who universally agree in this That Essence and Hypostasis differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which is Universal differs from what is Proper and Singular Now so far these Fathers were certainly in the right That if they must apply Philosophical Terms to Divine Mysteries which the Cavilling Objections of Hereticks made necessary there was an absolute necessity for them to change their signification for as there is nothing common to
Father Son and Holy Ghost in these Modes of Subsistence but only distinguish and characterize their Persons by them and from thence prove the real distinction of Persons in the Individual Unity of the Divine Essence But then I do not remember that they so much as distinguish all Created Persons by their peculiar Modes of Subsistence I know very well that both Damascen and others give an Example of this in Adam Eve and Seth that Adam was immediately formed by God of the Dust of the Earth Eve formed of one of Adam's Ribs and Seth begotten of Adam and Eve which they call their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this Example can signify nothing else but their different manner of Production not different Modes of Subsistence but then they do not alledge this as the formal Reason of Personality nay not as necessary to the distinction of Persons though such Peculiarities whenever they are will always distinguish Persons but all they designed by it was to prove that such different ways of coming into being made no change or alteration in Nature for Adam Eve and Seth had all the same Human Nature though formed after such a different manner in answer to the Arian Objection against the Homoousion that an Unbegotten and Begotten Nature cannot be the same and therefore Father and Son not Consubstantial Indeed this would have been a very ill Example of the Distinction of Persons by these different Modes of Subsistence because it could only distinguish Adam and Eve from all the rest of Mankind for all Mankind ever since excepting our Saviour have come into the World the same way that Seth did and therefore are not distinguished by a peculiar manner of Subsistence for they have all the same and consequently either are not distinct Persons or else such peculiar Modes of Subsistence coalescing with common Nature do not constitute the Person And yet I can meet with no other Account of any Modes of Subsistence necessary to the constitution of a Created Person excepting their Personal Properties and Characters which do not make but only distinguish Persons which are not properly Modes of Subsistence but Modes Affections and Properties of the Subsisting Nature but only a separate Subsistence that every Created Hypostasis or Person subsists by it self and separately from all others And herein both Fathers and Philosophers notwithstanding some difference in words seem well enough agreed and this is all that I need say concerning the Distinction between Nature and Person in Created Beings But now every one who understands the True Catholick Faith of the Trinity must needs be sensible how improper all this is to explain that Venerable Mystery of One Nature and Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead if we apply these Terms strictly and properly The Catholick Fathers would not allow Aristotle's Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature Essence and Substance that it is that which subsists by it self because this leaves no possible distinction between Essence and Hypostasis without which we can never defend the Faith of One Nature in Three Persons for what in his Sense thus subsists by it self is an Individual and Singular Nature which is the same with Hypostasis and then it is impossible there should be Three Hypostases in One Singular Nature which is but One Hypostasis But after all Do these Fathers deny that the Divine Nature is One Individual Nature Do they not as I have largely shewn make this the Fundamental Reason of the Divine Unity That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypstases and that this One Divinity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect Indivisible Vnit and Monad and that in a very different Sense from what they own in Creatures So that in some Sense these Fathers own That the Divine Nature is as True an Individuum and infinitely a more Perfect Vnit and Monad than Aristotle's First Substance though his First Substance is and can be but One Hypostasis and the Divine Nature subsists perfectly in Three And therefore to qualify this they tell us That Nature signifies the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is common to all the Hypostases of the same Nature but the Hypostasis is the common Nature with some peculiar and distinguishing Properties subsisting separately by it self and this seems to give us a better image and resemblance of One Nature in Three Hypostases for here is one common Nature not only in Three but in all the distinct Hypostases of that Nature that ever were or ever shall be But I 'm sure this needs greater qualification when applied to the Mystery of the Trinity than Aristotle's â—irst Substance or it will unavoidably introduce not merely Tritheism but Polytheism without end for God can limit the Numbers of Created Hypostases but the number of Hypostases in an Infinite necessary Nature can never be limited if the Divine Nature be common to the Divine Hypostases only as Humane Nature is common to Human Hypostases They teach as I have already observed That Human Nature for instance is a common Nature and that every Hypostasis or every particular Man has this same common Nature but then it is a common Nature not as it is numerically One in all for it subsists separately in every Hypostasis and therefore in this sense is not One common Numerical Individual Nature but it is common only as it is perfectly the same in all Which they will not allow to be a meer common Notion but a common Specifick Nature for the Nature is the Species which is the foundation of the common Predication For therefore all Men have the common Name and Definition of a Man because they have the same common Human Nature And thus though every Hypostasis has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular Nature as that signifies a distinction in the Nature it self yet it has the common Specifick Individual Nature that is that Nature which makes the Species and is common as it is the same in all but yet subsists individually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separately in each Hypostasis But now will any Catholick Christian say that thus it is in the Ever Blessed Trinity That the One Common Divinity is One and Common only as One Common Humanity is that is that it is perfectly the same in all not One Individual but One Specifick Nature Or will he say That each Divine Person has one whole intire Specifick Divinity as every Human Person has a whole Specifick Humanity As far as I can see this would as unavoidably make Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are three Men and a common Nature and personal Properties and different Modes of Subsistence would no more prevent a Trinity of Gods than a Trinity of Men. This I think plainly shews how vain an Attempt it is to find out any Notions of Unity and Distinction of Nature and Person or any words to express those
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
the Son of this One God the Father and the Spirit of God be the Spirit of this same One God And though the Son of God be God and the Spirit of God be God that is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons and therefore can no more be multiplied with the Persons than the Divine Nature is The Son of God is God but it is Authoritate Paternae Naturae as St. Hilary speaks not by any Absolute Godhead of his own but in right of his Father's Nature and Divinity which he received by an Eternal Generation Thus it must be where there is but One Absolute Nature with its Internal Processions Let us put the Case in a Human Mind and suppose That its Word and Spirit were Distinct Living Intelligent Hypostases in the Mind Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature perfectly the same with the Mind but distinct Hypostases but would any one for this Reason call these Three Three Men or Three Minds And yet such a Living Subsisting Word and a Living Subsisting Spirit would as perfectly have the Nature of the Mind as the Mind it self but neither of them would be an absolute Mind but one the Word of the Mind and the other the Spirit of the Mind not Three Minds but One Mind with its Essential Word and Spirit This though an Imaginary Case gives us a sensible representation of the difference between the Eternal Mind and its Eternal Word and Spirit which I freely acknowledge cannot properly be called Three Infinite Minds and Spirits for though the Eternal Subsisting Word is an Infinite Mind and so the Eternal Subsisting Spirit yet Mind as well as God is the Name of their Nature not of their Persons which is Identically one and the same in all This as I take it is what some Learned and truly Catholick Writers mean in distinguishing the several Acceptations of this Name God That sometimes it signifies the Divine Nature and Essence in general as when we say The Trinity is One God that is One Divinity that there is but One Divine Nature and Essence in all the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity Sometimes it signifies Personally as when we say The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God that is the Person of the Father the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost is God But then they are still forced to acknowledge that the Name God is not predicated Vnivocally of all Three Persons but that the Father is God in a more excellent and eminent Sense than the Son is God or the Holy Ghost God as being God of himself an Unbegotten Self-originated God the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit Upon which account he is so often by the Catholick Fathers called the One God and the only True God Now all this is very True and very Catholick but with all submission it seems to me to be an inconvenient way of speaking which perplexes the Article with different Senses and is liable to great Cavils and Misconstructions as the Examples of Dr. Payn and the Author of the 28 Propositions witness and when most dexterously managed will sooner silence than convince an Adversary The Divine Essence must be considered only as in the Divine Persons when we say That the Trinity is One God the true meaning is That Three Persons are One God and the general abstract Notion of the Unity of Essence does not account for this but the Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Thus to say That the Father is God in the highest sense of that Name God and that He alone strictly speaking is a Being absolutely perfect because he alone is Self-existent and all other Beings even the Son and Holy Ghost are from him may be expounded to a very Catholick Sense and was certainly so meant but is liable to great Cavils when Men take more pains to pick Quarrels with Words than to understand an Author An Absolutely Perfect God and a God that wants any Perfection sounds not only like Two Gods but like Gods of different Kinds for every diversity of Nature alters the Species All that is meant by this is certainly True and Catholick and taught in express words by the Primitive Fathers That the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father that the Son is all that the Father is excepting his being the Father and unbegotten that is excepting Paternity and Self-existence or Self-origination and that upon this Account the Father is eminently called the One God the Son God of God that is God as the Son of God What I have now discoursed seems to me to give the fairest Account of this Matter I take the Name God always to signify a Person in whom the Divine Nature is not the Divinity in the Abstract and then the Name God must belong to any Person after the same manner as the Divine Nature is his that is he must be called God in no other sense than as he is God Now as I have already shewn there is but One Absolute Divinity with Two Internal Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature And if we make this our Rule of Speaking as we must do if this be the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and we will fit our words to the nature of things then it is very plain That the Name God absolutely belongs only to him who is this Absolute Divinity that is the Person of the Father that no other Person is God in recto absolutely and simply God but only he that he is the One God the only True God as both the Scripture and Fathers own But what becomes then of the Son and Holy Ghost Is not the Son God and the Spirit God Yes the Name and Title of God belongs to them as the Divine Nature does that is not absolutely as to the Absolute Divinity but as to Divine Processions to Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Godhead that is the Second Person in the Trinity is God but not in recto as God signifies that Person who is the Divinity but as the Son of God as habens Deitatem having the Divinity not absolutely and originally but by Communication by Eternal Generation And so the Holy Spirit is not absolutely God but the Spirit of God and God only as the Spirit of God as an Internal Procession in the Divine Nature But in what sense then can we say That the Trinity is One God or that Three Persons are One God Must we not necessarily own that God in these Propositions is taken Essentially for the Deity in the abstract and not as considered in any One Person For will we say That the Trinity or Three Persons are but One Person No! and yet in this Proposition The Trinity is One God by One God I understand One who is absolutely God One Absolute Divinity which is the Father who has indeed a Son and Spirit in the Unity of his