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
the Apostles to be the only Infallible Rule of Faith This is the Argument from Prescription which Tertullian insists so largely on and is frequently urged by Irenaeus and other Catholick Writers which is not as some mistake it an Argument merely from Antiquity for though the true Faith was ancienter than any Heresies yet some Heresies had Antiquity enough to make them venerable if that alone would do it but the Argument was from the Tradition of the Apostolick Churches which were planted by the Apostles and had preserved an uninterrupted Succession from them and all the world over taught the same Faith without any material change or variation Whereas none of these Heresies how Ancient soever they might be could pretend to such an Original were never taught by the Apostles or any Apostolical men nor were received or owned by any Churches planted by them And this is an unanswerable Argument as long as we can reasonably suppose the Tradition of the Catholick Faith and the Communion of the Church was preserved entire which it visibly was at least till the first Nicene Council and during all this Period had we no other ways to know it we might learn the Faith of the Catholick Church by its opposition to those Heresies which it condemned 2 dly And this is the only Evidence which I shall at present insist on for the Catholick Tradition of the Faith of the Holy and Ever blessed Trinity for we may see the plain Footsteps of the Ancient Catholick Tradition concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost in those Ancient Heresies Simon Magus was the first Heretick we read of and may be very justly accounted the Father of many of the Ancient Heresies having led the way and sown the Seeds and Principles of them Now if we believe that Account which Epiphanius gives of him this wicked Impostor pretended himself to be God both Father and Son and affirmed that his Lewd Woman who was called sometimes Helena sometimes Selene was the Holy Ghost These Names and Distinctions of Father Son and Holy Ghost he could not possibly learn from any persons but only from the Christian Church in which he was baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And therefore we may observe that before his Baptism he only pretended to be some Great One and the deluded people thought him to be the great power of God 8. Acts 9 10. But when he was baptized and soon aâ—ter apostatized from the Christian Faith the Devil whose great Power he was set him up for the God of the Christians both Father and Son And though he blasphemously attributed these Titles of God the Father and Son to himself and wickedly corrupted this Faith by making the Father and Son but one Person under different appearances that he appeared to his Countreymen the Samaritans as God the Father and to the Iews as the Son yet there had been no pretence for this had not the Christian Church owned Jesus Christ the Son of God to be true and perfect God For had the Father been God and the Son a mere Man it is certain Father and Son could never be the same Person And besides the Wickedness and Impudence of the Impostor in pretending himself to be Father and Son it had been ridiculous to pretend this to Christians had he not known that the Catholick Faith taught the Son to be True and Real God as well as the Father and then if he could persuade them that he was God the Father he might with the same ease persuade them that he was God the Son too under a different appearance Thus when he pretends that his wicked Strumpet was the Holy Ghost by whom he created the Angels which created the World the very Prophanation of this Holy Mystery shews what the Faith of the Church in that Age was concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost for he could have no other Inducement to make his Woman whom he calls the Holy Ghost such a Divine Power but because he knew the Christian Church believed the Holy Ghost to be God and the Spirit of God as he made her to be his Divine Creating Intelligence Another Heresy concerning the Person of Christ attributed Divinity to him owned him to be the Son of God though not of the Maker of the world who they said was but an Inferior Angel but of the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father and that he appeared indeed in the world like a Man but was no true and real Man Now what should put such a wild Conceit as this into their heads had they not known this to be the Catholick Faith That Jesus Christ was the Son of God Their eyes could not see him to be God but they saw him to be a Man and yet they deny him to be a Man and teach that he was the Son of God in the form and apparition of a Man Which is a plain indication what the Catholick Faith was That Christ was both God and Man This they could not believe that the Son of God would so unite himself to Human Nature as to become true and real man and yet they thought it so evident that he was the Son of God or at least saw that this Faith was accounted so sacred that they would not venture to deny that and therefore chose to deny his Humanity and make a mere Apparition of him But then on the other hand Cerinthus and Ebion thought it too evident to be denied That he was a true and real Man and therefore they taught That Iesus was a Man and no more than a Man born as other Men are of Ioseph and Mary But then it is worth considering how they came to make this the distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect That Christ was but a mere Man if the Apostolick Churches whom they opposed and from whom they separated had not taught That he was more than a Man That he was God as well as Man Was there ever any Dispute either before or since concerning any other Man in the world who was owned to be a Man Whether he were a mere Man or not When one sort of Hereticks deny Christ to be a Man and another deny him to be God and both of them in contradiction to the Apostolick Faith it is a very strong presumption at least what the True Catholick Apostolick Faith was That Christ was both God and Man And yet Cerinthus himself though he makes Jesus to be a mere Man owns Christ to be a Divine Person and that this Christ descended on Jesus at his Baptism in the form of a Dove and rested on him or dwelt in him and wrought Miracles by him but left him at his Crucifixion and flew up again to Heaven So that according to Cerinthus from the time that Jesus was baptized till he was crucified the Divinity was very nearly and intimately united to him not that he was God and Man in one Person as the Catholick Faith teaches
but that the name of Nature may be multiplied when there are more who are united in the same Nature how comes it to pass that we contradict this in the Mystery of the Trinity that we acknowledge Three Hypostases who have the very same Nature without the least difference or diversity and yet teach that the Divinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost is but One and forbid saying that there are Three Gods Now the better to understand the Father's Answer we muâ—t observe that this was an Arian Objection against the Homoousion or the perfect Sameness Indifference and Equality of Nature between Father and Son For the design of it was as St. Gregory himself observes to reduce them to this dangerous Dilemma either to assert Three Gods which is unlawful or to deny the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is impious and absurd If they denied the Sameness and Equality of Nature then the Son and Holy Ghost are not True and Perfect God consubstantial with the Father or if Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Common Nature and are perfectly consubstantial then they are Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn who have the same One Common Humanity are Three Men and there is the very same reason for calling Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Gods that there is for calling Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men that is the same Nature common to them all This was the Objection St. Gregory was to answer and therefore his business was to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are not and ought not to be called Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are and may be called Three Men and therefore he must prove That they are neither Three nor One in the same sense that Three Men are Three and One for if they were they would be as truly and properly Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men and no more One God than they are One Man which had been to give up the Cause to the Arians instead of answering their Objection This may satisfy any man that those Learned Persons are very much mistaken who charge such a sense upon this Father as is directly contrary to his design for he understood the Laws of Reasoning better Neither he nor any other Father I ever yet met with asserted that Peter Iames and Iohn were but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God no otherwise than Peter Iames and Iohn are One Man which yet is what has been charged upon them But does not Greg. Nyssen say That it is a catachrestical way of speaking tho become common and familiar to multiply the name of Nature with the Individuals of the same Nature As to say That there are many Men because there are many who have the same Human Nature But if we would speak accurately and properly we should say that there is but one Man how many soever have the same Nature And does not he apply this to the Unity of God And can this have any other sense than that the same Divine Nature makes Father Son and Holy Ghost but One God as the same Human Nature makes all the Men in the World but one Man The Interpretation of which seems to be That Father Son and Holy Ghost are as much Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men but that it is very improper to call either the one or the other Three for they are but One by One Common Nature Now this Father does indeed say and so many others of them say That the name of Nature ought not to be multiplied with the Individuals but he was far enough either from saying or thinking what he is charged with That Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Men but One Man or that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God in no other sense but as Three Men are One And a due attendance to the Series of the Argument would have discovered the Falseness and Absurdity of this Imputation which therefore I shall briefly explain The Arian Objection which St. Gregory undertook to answer as I observed before was this That since the Catholick Church owned the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be consubstantial and to have the same undiversified Nature they must for that reason be Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn upon account of the same common Humanity are acknowledged to be Three Men That is that whether in God or Man the same Nature in Three must make Three Individuals of the same Kind and Species and therefore as the same Human Nature in Three makes Three Men so the same Divine Nature Three Gods In answer to this St. Gregory first observes That it is not the same common Nature which distinguishes and multiplies Individuals no not in Men Peter Iames and Iohn are not Three Individuals in the Species of Humanity merely by having the same Nature which is the force of the Arian Objection for what is perfectly the same in all can't distinguish or multiply them And this is plainly all that he means when he says That the name of Nature ought not to be used plurally and therefore Man being the name of Nature and signifying the same with Humanity we ought no more if we speak properly and Philosophically to say Three Men than Three Humanities or Three Human Natures for he proves that the name Man does not distinguish one Man from another nor can we single any particular Man out of a Crowd by that Compellation for there is but One Man or One Humamanity in them all that name not belonging primarily and immediately to the Individuals as such but to the common Nature Well but are there not Individual Men then as well as a Common Nature Yes without doubt but they are distinguished and multiplied not by the Common Nature which is the same in all but by such peculiar Properties as diversify and distinguish Common Nature as it subsists separately in particular Persons and that makes the Number though Nature be one and the same a perfect indivisible Monad This is not merely to criticize upon Words or to dispute against the common Forms of Speech but to give a true Philosophical Reason of their different Use when applied to God and Creatures We commonly call Peter Iames and Iohn Three Men and right enough but then they are not Three Men merely upon account of the same Common Humanity in them all which was the Arian Objection for Humanity is but One in all and what is perfectly One can't be numbred To say there are Three Humanities all Men grant to be absurd and yet it is to the full as absurd to say that Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men merely upon account of the same Humanity strictly and precisely taken as to say that there are Three Humanities So that though Peter Iames and Iohn could not be nor be called Three Men without the same Common Nature yet some peculiar distinguishing
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
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
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
owns we cannot prove that our Idea answers the Reality of Things and therefore I know not what this Rule is good for at all But our general Notion of Unity is of a very different Consideration and our particular Ideas of particular Things contribute nothing to it For the question is not How many Things are united in One Being or How many partial Conceptions are united in One Idea But What it is that makes it One or what the formal Conception of its Unity is But our Considerer takes heart at last from the Unity of the Idea of God to prove that there can be but One Divine Person in a proper sense or but One who is True and Perfect God His Argument is this We cannot conceive that any Object should be truly and adequately represented to any Mind or Vnderstanding under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three Ideas And what is the Consâ—quence of this That he tells us plainly That all the Perfections of the Deity though considered separately under different apprehensions by our imperfect Faculties being really but One simple Idea can be applied to but One single Person in the first sense of the word Person as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being Nature and Principle 1. Now in the first place this Argument supposes an Idea which truly and adequately represent its Object and yet our Considerer is so modest as not to pretend to a full and adequate Idea of God And therefore according to his own way he can never conclude from the Idea of God That it can belong but to One single Person because he has not an adequate Idea of the Divine Nature and then there may be something in the Idea of God which he does not comprehend which may make it applicable to more Persons than one Certainly it seems very reasonable when we confess that we have not an adequate Idea of the Dâ—vine Nature to refer this whole Dispute not to Natural Ideas which can never determine it but to Revelation which is more certain and more perfect than our Natural Knowledge 2. I grant That One Object cannot be truly and adequately represented to my mind under One Idea and truly and adequately represented under Three different Ideas But it is as true That One and the same Idea may be truly and adequately applied to Three distinct and different Persons The adequate Idea of Peter can be applied to none but Peter but the Idea of Man or of Human Nature may be truly and adequately applied to Peter Iames and Iohn and to every single human Person in the world The Idea of God as abstracted from the Consideration of a Trinity of Persons is only the Idea of the Divine Nature which is but One and can never be Three different Natures for the Divine Nature always was and always will be but One and the same and this is that One Object which is adequately in his sense represented by One Idea And this is the account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God That there is but One Divinity One Divine Nature in Three Persons and thus the Trinity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the One Divinity that One Object represented by the One Idea of God The Divine Persons are not distinguished by any difference of Nature which is One and the same in all but by Personal differences That the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son These are Three different Ideas for the Three Divine Persons but the Idea of the Divinity is but One as the Divine Nature is One and the same in all Could he indeed prove That the Idea of God is not only One simple Idea but the Idea of One single Person that would be somewhat more to the purpose it would be such an Argument against a Trinity of Persons from the Idea of God as Necessary Existence as included in the Idea of God is for the Being of God But this he can never prove and at best these Arguments from Ideas are thought too fine and subtle by most men 2. His next kind of Unity is a Vnity of Principle that is One thing which has but One Principle of Action And we cannot conceive that One Principle or Nature should be but One and yet Three different Principles and Natures But I suppose he can conceive That if One and the same undivided Principle and Nature be and act in Three these Three are One by the Unity of Principle and Nature And this is the Catholick Faith of the Trinity not Three different Principles and Natures in Three Persons but One and the same Principle and Nature inseparably and indivisibly subsisting and acting in Three Upon account of which Identity of Principle and Operation the Catholick Fathers asserted but One Life Energy and Power not confusedly but distinctly in Three which asserts the Unity of Principle together with the real distinction of true and proper Persons If indeed he can prove from his Vnity of Principle That One Nature and Principle can live subsist and act but in One such a Unity of Principle as this will admit but of One single Person and must overthrow the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity But though the Unity of Principle does prove That to be but One which has but One Principle it does not prove That this One Nature and Principle can be but in One. 3. His Third kind of Unity is very surprizing especially as applied to the Unity of God it is the Unity of Position of Place or of Vbi When we perceive any Object in a continued Position bounded and fenced out from other things round about it all within such Terms and Limits we call One Bless me thought I How is this applicable to the Unity of God who has no Body no Parts no continued Position can't be bounded and fenced round about nor confined within Terms and Limits and therefore can never have this Vnity of Position which is a very sorry kind of Unity at best His Philosophy belonging to this Head is very admirable but to let that pass he would not be thought to attribute Extension to Spirits but the Idea of a Point is more applicable to Spiritual Beings but a Physical Point is extended still though it be the least conceivable Extension and has parts and therefore can't represent simple Unity and is the Idea of Body not of Spirit Nor does he think local presence or determination any way contained within the Idea of a Spiritual Being and therefore this can't belong to the Unity of a Spirit Well But he is not able to comprehend the Vnion or Separation of Two Spiritual Beings without considering them in the same or different Localities I know not how to help this that he can't conceive of Spirits but only after the manner of Bodies Are Spirits united by Juxta-position of Parts or Penetration of Dimensions If not One Vbi can't unite
had already demonstrated this That One God signifies One single Person he only proves That the Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and therefore That these Terms must all be so understood as to include the same God the One single Divine Person in their Signification The first I think he proves well enough That these Titles and Characters of Father Son and Holy Ghost belong to God and this vindicates him from being a Socinian But when he applies all these Titles and Characters to One and the same God that is in his sense to One and the same single Person this proves him to be a Sabellian for this was the Doctrine of Noetus and Sabellius That these different Titles and Characters did belong but to One single Person who is God He proves That these Titles and Characters Father Son and Holy Ghost do signify God from the forms of Baptism Salutation and Blessing Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all From whence as he adds I infer That all these terms Father Son and Holy Ghost signify God because I cannot possibly conceive 't is agreeable to the nature of the Christian Religion that the Ministers of it should teach baptize or bless the people in any other name but God's I like this Argument very well but if it proves any thing it proves more than he would have it That Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them by himself true and perfect God and not all Three One single Person for it seems altogether as absurd to teach baptize or bless in Three Names and Titles when there is but One single Person signified by those Three Names And therefore his Inference is not very plain That if any One of these Terms signify God they must all Three signify God and if all Three signify God they must all Three signify One and the same God for God is One. This is very artificial but not plain The consequence is plain That if Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Names of God they must all signify One God by the Unity and sameness of Nature because there is but One God but not by the Vnity of Person because the Scripture mentions Three each of whom is God Which proves That God is One in Nature but Three in Persons as the Catholick Church has always believed As for what he adds That the One Supreme God the Lord and Maker of all things is here meant by the word Father is a thing not questioned and therefore Sâ—n and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the same Divine Nature may in some sense be allowed if he will distinguish between Nature and Person but according to the sense of Scripture and the belief of the Catholick Church Father Son and Hâ—ly Ghost are the names of Three Real Distinct Divine Persons not of One Divine Nature in the sense of One Persâ—n But though we allow this with the Catholick Church That the Father is the One Supreme God we have no reason to allow this to the Considerer who will not allow Father Son or Holy Ghost to be Names of Divine Persons or to be Names or Relations of the Divine Nature considered as the Divine Nature for he says they are extrinsecal that is â—xtra-essential Ideas Titles Characters Respects Relations and therefore Father according to this Hypothesis is not the essential Name of the One Supreme God but given to him for some extrinsical and extra-essential reasons is his Name not by Nature but by Institution and then must be proved to be his Name which the mere form of Baptism cannot do for the Name God is not expressed in it much less does it prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and the same God or One single Person It is evident indeed from other Texts That Father is the Name of God but then it is the Name of God the Father and the Son is the Son of God and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of God the Spirit of the Father and of the Son and this does prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost have the same One Divinity the same One Divine Nature as the very Names and Relations of Father and Son and Spirit prove But surely this does not prove That God the Father and his Son are the same One single Person as well as One God for Father and Son all the world over signify Two distinct Persons for no One Person can be Father and Son to himself nor can the Eternal subsisting Spirit of God be the same Person with that God whose Spirit he is Unless he allows that Father in the form of Baptism is the Name of a Person he can prove nothing from it and if Father be the Name of a Person Son and Holy Ghâ—st must be the Names of Persons also and then the Names and Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost necessarily prove That they are not One single Person but Three Persons Thus he proves the Son to be God from that Religious Worship which is paid to him which does indeed prove him to be God but not the same One Person with the Father Our Considerer is much mistaken if he thinks it sufficient to prove That Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Titles and Characters of the same One single Person who is the One God if he can prove that each of these Names signify One who is God And the truth is if these Names Father Son and Holy Ghost do not signify Persons they cannot signify God for then they are not Names of Nature but something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature and therefore they may be the external Denominations of him who is God but not the Names of God considered as God and therefore cannot signify God because they do not signify the Divine Nature in the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost but something extrinsical and accessory that is something which is not essential and therefore which the Divine Nature might be without I hope the Considerer did not think of this Consequence That it is possible that God might neither have been Father Son nor Holy Ghost which yet must be allowed possible if these be mere extrinsecal and accessory Titles and Characters Nay this must be allowed unless we will grant that these Names signify Three Real Subsisting Intelligent Coeternal Persons in the Vnity of the same Godhead But these Three Persons do somewhat puzzle him That God should be called Father Son and Holy Ghost is as easily to be believed as that he should be called Adonai Elohim and Jehovah That the same thing should be signified and expressed by several Names is no such incredible Mystery Which still shews us what it is he believes and would prove in all this That
Father is though not the same Person as truly a Person as God would be were there but One Person in the Godhead as these Hereticks affirmed For according to all the Rules of Disputation we must take Words in the sense of those whom we oppose for otherwise it is a mere wrangle about Words without opposing one another And therefore since the Sabellians by Person understood such a Person as every single Person is for they made Father Son and Holy Ghost but Three different Names of the same single individual Person nothing could oppose or confute them but to prove That Father and Son and Holy Ghost are Three distinct Persons in the same Notion of a Person which belongs to every single individual Person as far as mere Personality is concerned For to prove them Three in any other sense whether Three Modes or Three Powers or Three Parts of the same One single Person is what they would have and allow them to be but One Person and they will dispute no further nay will give you leave to call Three Modes or Three Names or Three Parts of the same One Person Three Persons if you please But for the clearer understanding of this matter we must consider by what Arguments the Ancient Writers opposed this Heresy Tertullian in opposition to Praxeas reduces this to a short Question Whether God have any Son and who he is and how he is his Son For if God have a Son the Son must be as true and real a Person as the Father and Father and Son must be Two distinct Persons for the same Person can't be both Father and Son to himself the very Names of Father and Son signify that one is of the other and we must understand things to be what they are called whether Father or Son which can no more be the same than Night and Day with respect to these different Relations The Father makes the Son and the Son makes the Father and those who receive these Relations from each other can never be these Relations to themselves that the Father should make himself a Son to himself or the Son make himself a Father to himself This Order God has instituted in all other Beings and he observes it himself A Father must of necessity have a Son to be a Father and a Son must have a Father that he may be a Son but to have and to be are two things as for instance for a man to be a Husband signifies that he has a Wife not that he is a Wife to himself and thus to be a Father signifies to have a Son not to be a Son to himself in such Relations we must be one and have another that to be both is to be neither because we can have neither If I be Father and Son to my self I am no Father because I have no Son who makes a Father but am Son my self and I am no Son because I have no Father who makes the Son but am Son my self and thus while they make Father and Son one and the same Person they destroy the Notion both of Father and Son Now would any man have argued at this rate who did not believe Father and Son to be real and Substantial Persons and as distinct from each other as a human Father and Son are for if they be not all this reasoning from the distinct Relations of Father and Son which require a real distinction of Persons is quite lost And whether this Argument be good or no which is not the present Enquiry it is certain that whoever uses it if he understands himself must believe That Father and Son signify as true and real Relations and as real and distinct Persons in the Godhead as they do in human Nature The like may be said of that other Argument against the Father and the Son being One and the same Person That then the same Person must in order of Nature be both before and after himself for he who begets must always in order of Nature though not of Time in an Eternal Generation be before him who is begotten by him That as Father he is before himself as Son as Son he is after himself as Father which had been Iudicrous trifling if they had not believed a real substantial Generation of the Person and consequently that the Son is a real substantial Person For this Argument will not hold in the Generation of Modes and Postures or in one part of the Deity generating another Thus to prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son they urge all those Texts in which the Father speaks to or of the Son and the Son speaks to or of the Father which are so many and so well known that I need not transcribe them And Tertullian lays it down as a certain Rule That he who speaks and he to whom he speaks and he who is spoken of cannot be one and the same Person for this is such perverseness and deceit as does not become God that when he himself is the Person to whom he speaks he should speak in such a manner as if he directed his speech to another and did not speak to himself And therefore when the Father says Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased When Christ tells us That God is his Father That he came forth from the Father and came into the world and again leaves the world and goes to the Father When he says I and my Father and I will pray the Father and he shall send you Another Comforter I and He and Another must signify Three as Real and Distinct Persons as these words signify in common speech Thus they prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son from those Texts which tell us That the Father sends the Son and the Son is sent That the Father anoints and the Son is anointed That the Father gives Commands and the Son receives them and doth the Will of his Father That the Father knows the Son and the Son the Father That he sees all that the Father doth and can do all that he sees the Father do For there must be distinct Subjects for such different Acts the same Person with respect to himself can't with any propriety of speech be said to send and to be sent to anoint and to be anointed to command and to obey to come forth from himself and to come into the world and to leave the world and go to himself And therefore he who sends and he who is sent c. must be Two Nay it is well observed by these Fathers That Christ himself expresly teaches us that He and his Father with respect to the distinction of Persons are Two so Two as to make a Legal Testimony of Two Witnesses 8. Iohn 13 18. When the Pharisees objected against him That he bore Record of himself and therefore his Record was not true He answers And
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
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
Homoousion which he afterwards readily received when the Council had declared in what sense they understood it and rejected all corporeal passions all division and partition change and diminution of the Divine Essence which pure simple unbodied eternal unchangeable Mind is not capable of Now all that I shall observe at present is That this very Objection which was thought so formidable necessarily supposes that both they who made it and they who were so much concerned to answer it did acknowledge a substantial generation of the Son for this whole Dispute is downright Nonsense without it If God the Father in begetting his Son does not so communicate his own Nature and Substance to him as to make him a true substantial Son of the same Substance indeed but yet as distinct in Substance from the Father as he is in Person How ridiculous is all this Dispute how the Father communicates his own Nature to his Son for according to these men he does not communicate or propagate his own Nature and Substance at all there being but one singular solitary Divine Nature and Substance with a Trinity of Names Modes or Offices and therefore no danger of any division or partition of the Divine Substance The Dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the generation of the Son was this They both owned against the Sabellians that the Son is a real substantial subsisting Person but the Question was whence he had his Nature whether he was created out of Nothing and consequently had a beginning of Being as the Arians affirmed or was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father and so coeternal with his Father as the Nicene Council affirmed That the Substance of the Son was of the Substance of the Father God of God Light of Light Against this the Arians objected That the Son could not be of the Substance of the Father without the division of the Father's Substance which is impossible in an infinite uncreated Spirit as God is which Argument is only against a substantial generation The Nicene Fathers allow this Objection to be good as to corporeal generations but deny that it is thus as to the Eternal Generation of the Son of God for an Eternal Uncreated Immutable Mind if it can communicate its own Nature at all and we learn from Scripture that God has a Son must do it without division of parts for the Divine Nature and Substance has no parts and is capable of no division And it is very absurd to reason from corporeal Passions to the Affections and Operations of Spirits much more of an infinite eternal Spirit Had not the Arians understood the Catholick Fathers of the substantial Generation of the Son they had more wit than to urge an Argument to no purpose for where there is no communication of Substance it is certain there can be no division of it And had not the Catholick Fathers owned this substantial Generation they would have rejected the Argument with scorn as nothing to the purpose and not have distinguished between corporeal generations and the Generation of Eternal and Infinite Mind That though Bodies cannot communicate their own Nature and Substance without division yet an Eternal Mind can so that from these perverse Interpretations of the Homoousion which the Catholick Fathers rejected we may learn what they meant by it for if Father and Son are not Consubstantial in the sense of the Sabellians and Modalists that is that Father and Son are not One Person with Two Names nor One singular solitary Substance common to them both then the Father must be a substantial Father and the Son a substantial Son and these Two substantial Persons are Consubstantial as having the same One Divine Nature and Substance intirely perfectly and distinctly in themselves without any division diminution or separation of Substance by a complete and perfect Generation whereby the Father communicates his whole intire Nature to the Son without any change or alteration in himself SECT II. Some Rules for expounding the Homoousion and in what Sense the Fathers understood it SEcondly Let us now examine what account the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers give of the Homoousion and in what sense they understood it But before I tell you what they expresly say of this matter I shall observe by the way two or three Rules they give us for expounding the Homoousion which are of great use in this Enquiry 1. The first is To give the Homoousion the right place in our Creed as the Nicene Fathers have done They do not tell us abruptly in the first place That the Son is consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father They first tell us That Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God begotten of his Father that is of the Substance of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light Very God of Very God Begotten not made and then they add Of One Substance with the Father This St. Hilary lays great stress on and his Reason is very considerable because if in the first place we say Father and Son are consubstantial or of One Substance this is capable of an Heretical as well as Orthodox Sense as we have already heard for they may be One Substance in the Sabellian Notion as that signifies One Person or One by the Division or Partition of the same Substance of which each has a part for all these perverse Senses may be affix'd to it when this word Consubstantial or One Substance stands singly by it self or is put in the first place without any thing to limit or determine its signification And therefore a true Catholick Christian must not begin his Creed with saying That Father and Son are of One Substance but then he may safely say One Substance when he has first said The Father is unbegotten the Son is born and subsists of his Father like to his Father in all Perfections Honour and Nature not of nothing but born not unborn but coaeval not the Father but the Son of the Father not a Part of the Father but All that the Father is not the Author but the Image the Image of God begotten of God and born God not a Creature but God not Another God of a different Kind and Substance but One God as having the same Essence and Nature which differs in nothing from the Substance of the Father that God is One not in Person but Nature Father and Son having nothing unlike or of a different kind in them And after this we may safely add That Father and Son are One Substance and cannot deny it without Sin This is as plain as words can make it and needs no Comment but fixes and determines the Catholick Sense of the Homoousion For if we must acknowledge the Son to be consubstantial or of one Substance with the Father in no other sense than as a True and Real Son is consubstantial a Son not created out of Nothing but
Nature and that it is common only in Notion as every particular Man has a Nature of the same kind or a true Human Nature These Fathers on the contrary affirm That Human Nature as considered in Peter or any other particular Man is a common Nature distinguished into Hypostases by something proper peculiar and particular to each That all Nature is common to all the Hypostases of the same kind and that it is impossible to find a particular and appropriated Nature Now as great an appearance as here is of a direct Contradiction a little consideration I believe will satisfy all thinking Men that Aristotle would have owned all that these Fathers say and then the only Dispute will be which of them speak most properly which is of no great moment in this Cause For what do these Fathers mean by a common Nature Do they mean that there is but one Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals but one Universal Human Nature in all the particular men in the World By no means Damascen expresly teaches That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Nature in Creatures is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be known by Reason but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the distinction of Hypostases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is seeen in the things themselves in their separate Existence But what is this common Nature which is seen by Reason why every particular Man is a reasonable Mortal Creature each of them is Flesh animated by a reasonable Soul and Mind and this is the common Nature which is seen by Reason common because it is perfectly and invariably the same in all though each of these Hypostases in which this common Nature is subsist distincty and separately by themselves and therefore the common Nature too subsists distinctly and separately in these separate Hypostases Now would Aristotle or any one for him deny that his first Substance though it be an Individuum which subsists compleatly and separately by it self is in this sense a common Nature as being perfectly the same in all the Individuals or in the Language of the Fathers in all the Hypostases of the same Nature There can be no such thing as what Aristotle calls a Species if every Individual have not the common Nature for Nature subsists only in Individuals and if that be not a common Nature it cannot have a common Name and Definition if Human Nature be not perfectly the same in Peter Iames and Iohn the Name and Definition of a Man cannot equally and universally belong to them all And therefore Damascen was certainly in the right who from an Universal Predication infers that common Nature is the Species and that for this reason Nature is predicated of its Hypostases or Individuals because in every Hypostasis of the same kind there is the same perfect Nature Every Man has the perfect Nature of a Man and for that reason and no other the Name and Definition of a Man belongs to every Man Upon this account it is that they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular singular Nature because then the same Hypostases must have both the same and a diverse Nature even the Persons of the Holy Trinity If Nature be perfectly the same in all the Hypostases it is a common Nature but if Human Nature in Peter have any thing peculiar and different from Human Nature in Paul it is then a particular Humanity and Peter and Paul are not perfectly of the same kind which is one Notion wherein they rejected a particular Nature which added to what I discoursed above that by a particular Nature they meant a whole absolute Individual Nature it includes I think all that they meant when they rejected as Heresy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Individual Natures in the Trinity By Three particular Natures they always understood Three Absolute Whole Individual Natures and this alone is Trithâ—ism for Three such Absolute Divinities must be Three Gods but besides this they thought there could not be Three Individual Natures without some essential difference to distinguish and number Natures and this added a mixture of Arianism to Tritheism and made at least in part Three different Divinities that they were partly of the same and partly of a different Nature For as far as I can understand this matter the reason why they rejected Singular and Individual Natures was not that Human Nature for instance does not subsist singly and individually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascen speaks in Peter and Paul and every individual Man in the World but because what is common to all without the least Alterity or Diversity can be but one in all for Alterity and Diversity is necessary â—o make a Number and therefore Nature which is perfectly the same in all though it subsists singly in Individuals is not an Individual it self as having no principle of Individuation in it self that is no Diversity For which reason it may be numbred with the Hypostases with the numbring Number but the res numerata that Nature which is numbred with the Hypostases is but one in all as I have shewn above In this sense also these Fathers rejected an Individual Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Disputes with the Severians concerning the Personality of Christ's Human Nature These Hereticks taught That every Nature is an Individuum Hypostasis or Person and therefore the Human Nature of Christ if it were true Human Nature must be a Human Hypostasis or Person too In answer to which these Fathers absolutely denied that there is any such thing as an Individual Nature that pure Nature is no Hypostasis not that it can't subsist for the Human Nature of Christ does actually subsist but that meer Nature has no individuating Principle in it self to distinguish it into different Hypostases but is distinguished not by any Essential Diversity but by Personal Properties that Nature with Personal Properties is a Person and therefore if there be a Subsisting Nature which has no Personal Properties but is distinguished some other way from Human Nature in Human Persons it is certain it is Human Nature but no Human Person And thus it is with the Human Nature of Christ which is distinguished from Human Nature in all others by its Hypostatical Union to the Eternal Word which is no Personal Property and therefore does not make it a distinct Person though it be a perfect Subsisting Nature This is the best and easiest Account I can give of the Philosophy of these Fathers concerning a Common and Individual Nature which if it be thought a new way of speaking yet it is what may be understood and has a great deal of old Truth in it and will help us to understand the Fathers in these Disputes about the Trinity and Incarnation a little better than I find many men do Let us then in the next place inquire what these Fathers mean by Hypostasis and how they distinguish it from Nature in Created Beings
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
Disputes amongst themselves which their common Adversaries are so apt to improve into Scepticism Infidelity or Heresy And therefore for a Conclusion I shall only take a brief Review of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article of a Trinity in Unity and apply it in a few words to our Socinian Adversaries The Faith of the Catholick Church taught by Christ and his Apostles is that there is but One God but this One God is a Father who has an Eternal Son and an Eternal Spirit in the Essential Unity of the same Undivided and Undiversified Godhead And this is the Faith which all the Catholick Fathers have owned and taught in their several Ages The whole Christian Church Baptizes as our Saviour commanded in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and this is the Rule of their Faith to believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost A plain simple Faith could Men have been contented to believe God concerning himself Let our Socinian Adversaries tell us what there is absurd impossible or contradictious in this Faith Will they venture to say That it is absurd or contradictious that God should have a Son No! in some sense they will allow this true they themselves believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost they acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God as he is frequently called in Scripture and that in a higher sense than any other Man is the Son of God but that he is but a Man after all though advanced by God to Divine Honours above all Principalities and Powers and made the Judge both of the Quick and of the Dead and this they affirm to be all that the Scripture means in calling Christ the Son of God But this is not the present Dispute They know that the Catholick Church believed otherwise that Christ is the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before all worlds God of God very God of very God and they know also that thus the Catholick Fathers expounded those Texts which concern the Sonship and Divinity of our Saviour and they cannot but confess That they are very capable of such an Exposition nay that it is very difficult to put any other sense upon many Texts and the only reason why they reject these Catholick Expositions is the pretended Absurdity and Contradiction of the Catholick Faith Here then we join issue with them and desire them to shew us what is impossible or contradictious in this Faith That there is something incomprehensible in this Mystery that is something which we have no Natural adequate Ideas of we readily acknowledge with the whole Catholick Church and some of our Adversaries grant That it is possible for a thing to be whereof we have no Idea and then it seems to me very unreasonable to add but we are no ways concerned nor can we Reason or Discourse about those things whereof we have no Ideas For the direct contrary seems to be the more natural consequence that if God thinks fit to reveal such things to us of which we have no Ideas we are concerned and obliged to believe them for if they may be true they are the proper Objects of Faith though they want the Evidence of Natural Ideas But I do not intend to dispute this now but refer them to the Bishop of Worcester ' s Answer to Mr. Lock ' s Second Letter and to a late Sermon and its Vindication Concerning the Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy What I have now to say is of another Nature viz. That we have an Idea of a Trinity in Unity and such an Idea as contains nothing absurd impossible or contradictious in it That very Idea which I have so largely explained One Absolute Divinity with Two Eternal Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature The Eternal Father Eternal Self-originated Mind with his Eternal Word his Eternal Son and the Eternal Spirit of Father and Son This is that Idea which the Scripture gives us of it and which the Catholick Church hath always taught Every Man may understand what is meant by it and therefore it is not Jargon and Nonsense and I think I have sufficiently vindicated it from Tritheism and Contradiction and have no more to say of that nature till I hear what they have to object against what is already said and when they come to consider this Matter again as Men that shall certainly be called to an Account for it in this World as well as in the next I hope they will see reason to grow out of conceit with their own Philosophy about Emanations and Processions a Priority of Time and Priority of Nature Self-Existence and Necessary Existence and such like Arian Objections which were made and answered many Ages since and which they may find sufficiently answered in this Treatise This brings back the Dispute to Scripture where the last Appeal must lie in all such Matters without appealing for the Sense of Scripture to Natural Ideas and Philosophy And if the Interpretations of the Catholick Fathers were of any Authority with these Men I have already shewn how they expounded Scripture which will always be a venerable Authority to modest Men and sober Christians how much soever it be despised by Hereticks But it is time to put an end to this Treatise we may consider their Expositions of Scripture some other time THE END DR Sherloc◠Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity Third Edition Quarto Apology for Writing against Socinians Quarto The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy A Sermon Quarto A Vindication of the Sermon in Answer to some Socinian Remarks An Answer to the Animad versions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity By I. B. A. M. Quarto A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for Writing against Socinians Quarto A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity Quarto The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet Quarto All Printed for William Rogers Quâ nec dicuntur ut cogitantur nec cogitantur ut sunt Aug. de Trinit l. 5. c. 3. Cùm ergo quaeritur quid tria vel quid tres conferimus nos ad inventendum aliquod speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamur haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 3. Ad se quippe Pater dicitur Persona non ad Filium aut Spiritum Sanctum Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 6. Cur ergo non haec tria simul unam Personam dicimus sicut unam Essentiam Deum sed tres dicimus Personas cùm tres Deos aut tres essentias non dicamus nisi quia volumus vel unum aliquod vocabulum servire huic significationi quâ intelligitur Trinitas ne emnino taceremus interrogati quid tres cùm tres esse fateremur Ibid.