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
can be One Energy and Power and therefore that One Energy does not cause their Unity because they must be One before they are One Agent And indeed such Men Gregory Nyssen intimates he had to deal with who would not allow the Deity to be Energy and Power but he thought it not worth the while to dispute that Point with them for the Divine Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible the pure and simple Nature of God is not the immediate Object of our Knowledge can have no name and definition given it and therefore we can know nothing of it immediately and directly but by such Essential Attributes and Properties as we câ—n form some notion of The not considering this how perfectly unknown and incomprehensible the Divine Nature it self is occasioned a late Author to tell us That An Hypothesis in this Affair which leaves out the very Nexus the Natural and Eternal Vnion and insists upon mutual consciousness which at most is but the consequence thereof wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the Vnity of the Godhead But this is to philosophize about the abstracted Natures and Essences of Things even the Divine Substance and Essence which I dare not presume to do No doubt but God is the most real substantial Being in the World even Father Son and Holy Ghost and there is as little doubt but there is as real and substantial an Union between them But I know nothing of the Substance of God as distinguished from his Essential Attributes and Perfections nor of such a Distinction and Unity of Substance in the Deity as can help us to form any notion of a Trinity in Unity and defend it from the Charge of Contradiction and Impossibility when we have done For we must have a care of conceiving any Extension or Parts or Composition in God without which we can have no notion of a Distinction and Union of Substances considered purely under the notion of Substance And therefore we must be contented to be ignorant of the Substance and Substantial Unions of the Deity as we are of all other Substantial Unions We know not what the Substance of a Spirit is nor what the Substance of Matter is nor what their substantial Unity is And therefore when we inquire into their Distinction and Unity we never meddle with the Essential Reasons and Causes of Unity which are concealed from us but consider as far as Sense or Reason or Observation will reach wherein the Unity of any thing consists and when a thing may be said to be One As to instance at present only in the Unity of a Mind and in the Union of Soul and Body Is there any thing else in the World which can make a Mind one with it self and distinguish it from all other Minds but a self-conscious Sensation that it feels it self and its whole self and only it self I suppose these Men will grant that such a Mind is One and but One and distinct from all other Minds but Self-consciousness is not the formal reason of the Unity of a Mind or of a Person because in order of Nature the Unity of a Mind or Person must go before Self-consciousness that is Self-consciousness is owing to the Unity of Essence not the Unity of Essence to Self-consciousness Well but what is this Essence of a Mind and this Unity of Essence which makes a Mind One Truly that no body can tell and therefore to say a Mind is one by the Unity of its Essence is to say it is One because it is so for we know no more of the matter But Self-consciousness is a sensible Unity which we all feel in our selves and know our selves from other Men by it This Unity of Essence we know nothing of but by Self-consciousness and I desire to know whatever the Unity of Essence be whether any but a Self-conscious Unity would make a Mind One and distinguish it from all other Minds which shews that we have nothing to do with the naked Essences and Substances of Things but with their immediate and essential Properties and when we know them we know all that is to be known of Nature and therefore we can know no more of the Unity of a Mind than Self-consciousness The Substances of things are distinguished from each other by their Essential Properties and therefore from them we must learn their Unity or Distinction A Mind is a Substance and Matter is Substance and the essential difference between them as far as we can understand is that a Mind is a thinking Substance and Matter extended Substance and therefore we must judge of a Mind by the properties of Thinking and of Matter by extension The Unity of a Thinking Substance must consist in the Unity of Thoughts and Sensations that is in one Consciousness and the Unity of an Extended Substance in the continuity of its extension and to ask farther what is the cause or principle of Consciousness in a Mind or of One Consciousness in One Mind is to ask a reason of the natures of things why a Mind is a Thinking Being and why One Thinking Being has one Center of Thoughts Why do they not ask also how Extension comes to be essential to Matter and how Matter is extended I know no reason to be given of such matters but the Will of God who formed all things according to the Ideas of his own Infinite Wisdom This I hope is sufficient to be said concerning the order of Nature and the priority and posteriority of our Conceptions for if we do not stop in our Inquiries at immediate and essential Properties but demand an antecedent Reason for them this is to demand a Reason of Nature Why things are what God has made them Those who are not contented to contemplate Nature in its immediate and Essential Properties may philosophize by themselves for me for there is nothing more to be known without an intuitive knowledge of Nature it self which none can have but the Author of Nature Thus should you inquire of me concerning the Union of Soul and Body all that I know of it is That they are united in one Conscious Life That the Soul feels all the Impressions of the Body and directs and governs it No will such Philosophers say here wants the Nexus the natural Union between Soul and Body for they must be One by a Natural Union before there can be this Conscious Life and Sympathy between them which is not the Union but the effect and consequent of this Union Very true They must be vitally united to have One Life and to receive impressions from each other But can they give any other notion of this Vital Union than that the Body is animated by the Soul and lives with it Could these Philosophers tell you how a Soul which is an Immaterial Being could be fastened to a Body what Union of Substances there is between them which is the thing they want to know would they understand a Vital Union ever
of the Godhead but not the Incarnation of the Son of God But this is not the Doctrine of Scripture merely to say That God suffers himself to be worshipped in the Man Christ Iesus as if God and the Man Christ Iesus were not One Person but that he commands us to worship that Person who is called Christ Jesus not as a Man in whom the Power of God dwells and is present as in the Heavens or in the Jewish Temple or in the Prophets and Holy Men who were never for this reason thought the Objects of Worship but as his own Eternal Son Incarnate That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father which does not only signify to honour the Father in the Son but to pay Divine Honours to the Person of the Son which makes them distinct Objects of Worship and therefore True and Proper Persons not Personal Characters which may be distinct Reasons of Worship but are not distinct Objects But we shall better understand this by the account he gives of the Union of God and Man In what manner Soul and Body or God and Man are united is not the question for we know nothing how this Physical Union is made but the question is concerning the Nature and Kind of this Union Whether as the Soul and Body are united in One Person so as to be One Man so God and Man are united in One Person That as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ. Whether the Divine and Human Natures are united in One Person or God be united to Man only as an assisting Principle by a perpetual and constant Influx of Divine Powers and Virtues These two are vastly different The first indeed always includes the second in the most perfect manner but the second does not always infer the first A Personal Union is always a Union of Life Influence and Power as he describes the Vnion of Soul and Body That there is some Intelligent Power that makes use of the Organs of my Body and acts in conjunction with the motions there produced This is all true and necessarily consequent upon a Personal Union but a very lame account of the Vital Union of Soul and Body for thus Angels may use the Bodies they assume without a Personal Union But a conscious Life Sensation and Government which makes One self is a great deal more than to act in conjunction with the Motions of the Body The Union of Influence and Power may be without Personal Union and therefore does not always make One Person It is the first we enquire after it is the first the Scripture teaches That the Word was made Flesh That God sent forth his Son made of a woman This is the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation but this the Considerer takes no notice of but all he says relates only to the Union of Influence and Power And I may says he as well consider God united to Man when he so acts by the Ministry and Operation of Man that the Actions of God seem conveyed to us the same way as the actions of one man are to another But does this make God True and Perfect Man This falls short of the conjunct Operations of Soul and Body which are much more close and intimate than the actions of one man are to another however to be sure the actions of one man upon another do not make Two such Men One Person nor therefore can the like Influence of God on Man make God and Man One Person But he proceeds Had those who upon some occasions spake by the Extraordinary Assistance of a Divine Power been constantly so directed and assisted how could they have distinguished the Motions of their Souls from the Impressions of God Just as they did when they were sometimes thus assisted for External Impressions are always distinguishable from Internal Motions But suppose they could not distinguish them does this prove that God is Incarnate in such men or would it be a reason to worship such men as God He adds And why then should we not think such an extraordinary Power as this as much united to such men as that common ordinary Power we call the Soul is to those Bodies in which it acts and exerts it self The Answer is plain because it would be an External not an Internal Principle of Life and Motion and Sensation how constant soever its Influences were He calls it an Extraordinary Power which shews that it is not a Natural Principle of Action it is an Extraordinary Power united to a Man and therefore the Man is the Person this Extraordinary Power only an external assisting Principle of the same kind with that in Prophets though more constant and regular in its actings But here is nothing of Incarnation in all this Is this Extraordinary Power a Divine Subsisting Person in the true and proper Notion of a Person Is it the Son of God that Eternal Word which was in the beginning was with God and was God Is this Extraordinary Power so united to Human Nature as to become Man Is it the Person of Christ Jesus who was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin lived in the World as a Man suffered and died and rose again from the dead and now sits at the Right Hand of God in the highest Heavens Not one word of all this which is the true Mystery and the only Use of this Doctrine of the Incarnation whereon all our Hopes of Salvation by Christ depend This Extraordinary Power is not a Person but such a constant regular Inspiration as he says some are of opinion the Soul of man is But whether that be so or not as he thinks mâ—st probably it is not which yet argues some kind of Inclination to it yet it seems to him plain from Scripture that such a Power as we ascribe to God he will not say such a Power as is God or a True Divine Person did as constantly and regularly act in and through Christ as the Human Soul is perceived to do in any other man That such a Power did constantly appear and act in Christ is true but whether by Nature or by a constant and regular Inspiration is the Question Our Saviour proves his Divine Nature from his Works our Considerer thinks it proves no more than a constant and regular Inspiration The first is necessary to the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation That the Word was made Flesh the second proves him only to be an extraordinary and perpetual Prophet The first makes him True God-Man the second makes him only a Divine Man And this is all he can mean by this Power regularly and constantly acting in and through Christ For if Christ be God-Man he is this Divine Power in his own Person it is his Divine Nature not an external adventitious Principle how regularly and constantly soever it acts it is not merely an uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity with the Man Christ Jesus
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
several Individuals we form a Notion of one common Nature which belongs to them all as the Notion of Humanity or Human Nature which belongs to all men and affords a common Name and a common definition to them But this is only the work of the mind for there is no such one common Human Nature actually existing in all Mankind but every man is a man by himself and has a particular Human Nature as he has a Soul and Body of his own which is not the Soul and Body of any other man in the world And thus Damascen owns it is with all Creatures of the same kind who in truth and reality are distinct separate Beings who subsist apart by themselves as Peter and Paul and all other men do and are united only in a common Notion not in a common subsisting Nature which is one and the same in all But then he tells us that it is quite otherwise in the Divine Nature which is a common Nature and yet but One not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not meerly in our notion and conception but in truth and reality the same One Divine Nature without the least diversity or separation actually and distinctly subsisting in Father Son and Holy Ghost which being perfectly the same is but One and really and substantially subsisting in Three is a common Nature which is equally and perfectly in them all Thus Damascen has declared his Opinion fully against the notional and specifick Unity of the Divine Nature that the Divine Nature is One only as Human Nature is One because it has one common Name and Definition which belongs to all of the same kind whereas there is no one common Human Nature in Subsistence but only in Notion But the same One Divine Nature actually subsists in Three and is the same One Divinity in Three And that this was the true Sense of all the Catholick Fathers will appear from considering some Notions which were common to them all 1. They all agree That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but One Divinity and One God and One God because but One Divinity and for this very reason nothing is more familiar with them than to call the Holy Trinity One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Divinity in Three perfect Hypostates Now will any man say That the One Divinity or One Divine Nature and One God is a meer Notion Is not the Unity of God the fundamental Article of Natural Religion And if this One Divinity does really immutably inseparably subsist in Three Divine Persons as it must do if these Three Divine Persons with respect to this One Divinity are naturally and inseparably One God Can this One common subsisting Divinity be a meer Notion which has no Hypostatical Subsistence but only subsists in Thought Can the Specifick Notional Unity of Human Nature make three men one man as the One common Divine Nature makes Three Persons One God If the Unity of the Divine Nature be but a Notion the Unity of God the Unity of the Trinity which is this One God must be a meer Notion also And so in truth and reality there is no more One God than there is but one man I readily grant That the Father may be and often is in a peculiar manner called God and the One God as distinguished from the Person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit but I deny that he is called the One God as considered without them or so much as in thought separated from them If we do not include the Son and the Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead we must deny their Godhead also unless we will say that there is One God and besides him two Divine Persons each of which is God but not the One God Which must introduce a Plurality of separate Gods For if they be not One they are more than One and if One Person be the One God without the other they cannot be One God This shews what necessity there is of owning the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity to be the One God and One Divinity naturally and essentially One and then the necessary Consequence is That this One Divine Nature which actually and substantially subsists in Three distinct Divine Persons who for that reason are naturally and essentially One God cannot be a mere Common Specifick Nature but One Common Subsisting Nature But what possible Sense can we make of this One Common Subsisting Nature which is really actually indivisibly One and yet is Common that is does really and distinctly subsist in more than one To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Common and to be One not in Notion as a Species is common to all the Individuals but in the truth and reality of Nature sounds very like a Contradiction When we say the Divine Nature is common to Three Persons and subsists distinctly in three we deny it to be One singular solitary Nature which can subsist but in one and constitute but One Person which was the Sabellian Notion of the Divine Unity which the Catholick Church condemned as destroying a Real Trinity as I have shewn at large But how then can this Common Nature which is not singular but subsists perfectly and distinctly in Three be actually and essentially One for a Natural Unity is a Numerical Unity is one in number which one would think should signify a singular Nature for so it does in all Creatures And when we speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature it cannot be one by composition which the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature cannot admit This is the great difficulty which we must not expect perfectly to understand because a Finite Mind can never comprehend that is can never have an adequate notion of what is infinite But I shall give some account what the Catholick Fathers have said of this matter which will satisfy us that it is a natural not a mere Specifick Unity which they intended and will give us such a notion of this Venerable Mystery as will deliver it from all inconsistency and contradiction 2. I observe therefore That the Catholick Fathers lay the foundation of this Sameness and Homoousiotes of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son is not of nothing as all Creatures are but receives his whole Substance of the Substance of his Father St. Basil in express words makes Generation essential to the notion of the Homoousion For such Beings as upon account of likeness of Nature may be call'd Brothers to each other are not therefore Homoousious but when the Cause and that which actually subsists from or out of that Cause have the same Nature then they are Homoousious to each other And in opposition to that Perverse and Heretical Sense which some affixed to the word Homoousion that
make Three Gods because there is but one and the same Divinity in Three And this is what they mean by the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature not that Unity or Unit which is the beginning of Number but the Unity of Sameness and Identity which Tho. Aquinas calls unum non numero sed re numerata One not in the numbring Number but in the thing mumbred or as the Fathers speak not in Number but Nature The better to understand this matter we must consider what St. Basil discourses about the Unity of God in answer to those who charged the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tritheism viz. That they acknowledged One God but not in Number the numbring Number but in Nature For that which is One in Number is not truly One nor perfectly Simple in Nature but all men acknowledge God to be the most Simple Uncompounded Being and therefore he is not One in the Notion of this numbring Number This he proves by an induction of particulars we say the World is one in number but not one in nature for it is compounded of great variety of Creatures and we say one Man but Man is compounded of Body and Soul and even any Angel is not perfectly pure and simple but is compounded of Essence and Qualities such as Holiness which is not pure and simple Nature for it may be separated He adds that Number is a Species of quantity and answers to the Question How many which properly belongs to a Corporeal Nature And indeed all Number denotes such things as have a material or at least a circumscribed and limited Nature but Monad and Vnity denote the Simple Uncompounded Uncircumscribed Infinite Essence And when he says That Number must belong to things of a Circumscribed Nature thereby he tells us he means not merely such things as are circumscribed by Place which properly belongs to Bodies but all such Natures as have a limited and confined Idea as all Created Natures whether Body or Spirit have whose Natures are limited circumscribed fixt and determined by that Infinite Mind which gives being to them The meaning of all which is this That to make a Number there must be Alterity and Diversity in Nature or a separate Existence But a Perfect Simple Uncompounded Nature can admit of no possible alteration and diversity for the same Nature can never differ from it self without some kind of composition and where there is no difference and diversity there can be no number and an Infinite Uncircumscribed Nature can never be divided and separated or subsist a-part and therefore can't be numbred So that Number can belong only to Created Natures which are compounded and finite and therefore by some diversifying Qualities or Affections and a separate Exâ—istence may be distinguished into Individuals which may be numbred but the Unity of the Divine Nature which is a Perfect Indivisible Uncompounded Infinite Monad is not the Unity of Number but a Perfect Invariable Sameness and Identity and an Indivisible inseparable Union Now some Men who do not duly attend to the nature and design of these Reasonings apply all this to prove the Perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence in the most strict and proper notion of Singularity as that signifies One in Number which contradicts the whole Intention of this Hypothesis which is to prove that the Unity of God does not consist in the Unity of Number but of Nature and that the Unity of the Divine Nature is not a Unity of Number but a Unity of Sameness Identity and Inseparability This is a Matter of great consequence and therefore let us consider it over again This distinction between the Unity of Number and the Unity of Nature was alledged by the Catholick Fathers to avoid the Charge of Tritheism The Sabellians and Arians asserted the Unity of God to be a Unity of Number that One Divinity is not One unless it be One in Number One Single Solitary Divine Nature And this say they is inconsistent with the Trinity of Divine Persons each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God For Three such Divine Persons must be Three Gods Three Divinities if each Divine Person have the True Perfect Divine Nature in himself and it is impossible to understand what a Divine Person is without the Divine Nature So that if the Father be God the Son God the Holy Ghost God if Father Son and Holy Ghost be Three they must be Three Gods This was the great Difficulty and it is the only material Difficulty to this day To have asserted but One Singular Divine Nature which is but One in Number had given up the Cause to the Sabellians or Arians For then either Father Son and Holy Ghost are but Three Names or Offices of the same One Divine Person who is the One God as the Sabellians taught Or Father Son and Holy Ghost are not a Consubstantial Trinity but the Father alone is God and the Son and Holy Ghost but mere Creatures how Excellent Creatures soever they are On the other hand should they have denied that Three Ones make Three this had been false counting as the Socinians tell us now and therefore to avoid both these Extremes they distinguish between the Number by which we reckon and the thing which is numbred and thus they find a Real Trinity in Perfect Unity As Greg. Nyssen tells us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same thing the same Divinity is both numbred and not subject to Number It may so far be numbred with the Persons as each Divine Person has the whole and perfect Divinity in himself but yet the Divinity can't be numbred not because it is One Single Solitary Divinity for it really subsists in Three but by reason of that perfect Sameness and Identity which admits of no Number for that which is perfectly one and the same in Three can't be numbred Had they thought of such a Singularity of the Divine Nature as is but One in Number they must have disputed at another rate against Sabellians and Arians Would they have taught That the Divinity may be numbred and yet is without Number Which is impossible to be true of the same singular Divinity which is but One in Number and therefore can never be more than One in Number that is in that Father's sense cannot be numbred much less can the same Singular Nature be numbred and incapable of Number that is be One and More than One. Would they have taken so much pains to prove That Sameness and Identity of Nature excludes all Number if by this they had meant the Sameness and Identity of Singularity as the same thing is one and the same thing with it self which is no great Mystery And is it not evident that this whole Dispute is concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three distinct Persons and consequently concerning that Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between Three who have the same Nature and therefore not One
the better for it An Union of Substances seems to signify some kind of Contact which is hard to conceive between Body and Spirit but however an Union of Contact and an Union of Life are two very different kinds of Union and do not include or infer each other and therefore the true Answer to that Question How Soul and Body are united is not to say That their Substances are united or fastened together which gives us no notion of a Vital Union but that the Soul lives in the Body and gives life to it receives impressions srom it and governs its motions But to inquire farther is to inquire into the Reasons of Natural and Essential Unions which are as great Mysteries as Nature is We may as well ask How a Soul lives as how it animates a Body and God alone knows both So that to inquire after the Natural Nexus or Cement of this Union is nothing at all to the purpose and is not the Object of Human Knowledge Now though the Vital Union between Soul and Body and the Union of mutual Consciousness be of a very different Kind and Nature yet the Dispute about the Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is much the same Consciousness is the Unity of a Spirit Self-consciousness is the Unity of a Person and by the same reason mutual Consciousness is a Natural Union of Three distinct Self-conscious Persons in the Unity of the same Nature And to reject this for want of a Nexus or the Natural Union of Substances is as if we should deny the Union of Soul and Body to be an Union of Life or Animation because this don't explain the Natural Nexus between Soul and Body If a Mutual Conscious Union be an Essential Union of Three distinct Persons in the same Nature as a Vital Union is the Essential Union of Soul and Body we have nothing to do in either Case with the Union of Substances which we can know nothing of and if we could should understand these Unions never the better for it For whatever Union of Substance we may suppose between Soul and Body and the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity it is the Kind and Species of Union which gives us the Notion and Idea of it If you inquire what Spirit and what Matter is It would not be thought a good Answer to these Questions to say a Spirit is a Substance and Matter is a Substance without adding their Specifick Differences that a Spirit is an intelligent thinking Substance and Matter is an extended Substance nor is it a better Answer to that Question what Union there is between Soul and Body or between the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity To say That their Substances are united which gives us no distinct Notion of their Union but a Vital Union and a Mutual Conscious Union contain distinct Ideas and if these be Natural and Essential Unions though we know no more of the Union of Substances than we do what Substance is yet we know that the Soul and Body must be one Natural Person and the Three Divine Persons must be naturally and essentially One God for a Natural Union makes One according to the Nature of that Union It is visible enough what has occasioned this Mistake Men consider Mutual Consciousness between Three Compleat Absolute Independent Minds and rightly enough conclude that how conscious soever they were to each other this could not make them essentially One for every compleat Mind is One by it self and not naturally Conscious to any One but it self and by whatever Power they should be so united as to be mutually Conscious this could not make them essentially One they would be Three Mutually Conscious Minds not essentially One Mind for they are not by Nature One nor mutually Conscious and therefore may be parted again and cease to be so But then in this way of stating it the Objection equally lies against the Perichoresis the inseparable Union and In-being of Minds which can never make Three Compleat Absolute Minds essentially One But if we apply this to the Union of Living Subsisting Intelligent Relatives of the same Individual Essence to Father Son and Holy Ghost Eternal Self-originated Mind its Eternal Living Subsisting Word and Eternal Spirit this Mutual Consciousness gives us the most Intelligible Notion of the Essential and Inseparable Union and In-being of Three in One. I dare not say what other Men can do but I have tried my self and can form no Notion of an Unity in Trinity but what either necessarily includes or ultimately resolves it self into One Natural Essential Consciousness in Three The Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One in Three but we must not understand this Inseparability after the manner of Bodies whose Parts may be divided and separated from each other God is not Body and has no Parts but in the Unity of the Godhead there is Eternal Original Mind an Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit which are inseparable from each other that is can never be parted What then can parting and separating signify in a Mind which has no Parts to be torn and divided from each other I can understand nothing by it but that the Mind does no longer see and know and feel its Word in it self nor the Word the Mind for this would make a perfect Separation between the Mind and its Word that Mind has no Word which does not see and feel it in it self and were it possible that a living subsisting Word should lose all Conscious Sensation of the Mind whose Word it is it would cease to be a Word and commence a perfect separate Mind it self So that as far as we can conceive it the Inseparable Union between Father and Son between Original Infinite Mind and its Eternal Word is an inseparable Conscious Life and Sensation which is such a Natural Demonstration of their Inseparable Union as no other Notion can give us for all Men feel that a Mind and its Word can never be parted a Mind can never be without its Word nor the Word subsist but in the Mind Thus what other possible Notion can we form of the Perichoresis or Mutual In-being of Father and Son as our Saviour tells us I am in the Father and the Father in me which is their Natural and Essential Unity I and my Father are one We all feel how the Word is in the Mind and the Mind in the Word the Mind knows and feels and comprehends its own Word and a perfect living subsisting Word knows and feels that whole Mind whose Word it is in it self for the Word is nothing else but the whole Mind living and subsisting in the Word which is another Hypostasis but perfectly One and the same Nature and therefore as they know themselves so they know and feel each other in themselves As the Father knoweth me saith Christ so know I the Father 10 John 15. And thus to see and know God by an Internal Sensation and to be
Now they themselves tell us That by Hypostasis they mean Aristotle's first Substance or that which subsists by it self not as a Part in a Whole nor as Accidents in a Subject but is a perfect whole it self and has a compleat Subsistence of its own What is it then that subsists by it self For that is Aristotle's first Substance and the Fathers Hypostasis And that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature Essence and Substance For nothing else can subsist by it self as is evident in Aristotle's Definition of Essence and Substance and though the Fathers put something more into their Definition of Hypostasis yet it comes all to one For as Damascen tells us Every Hypostasis is perfect Nature and Substance and therefore the Hypostases do not differ from each other in Nature but only in such peculiar and Characteristical Accidents as distinguish Hypostases For the Definition of Hypostasis is Nature with its Accidents That every Hypostasis has the common Nature with its peculiar distinguishing Accidents subsisting by it self So that an Hypostasis is nothing else but Nature with its Accidents and distinguishing Characters subsisting by it self Now we know Accidents do not subsist by themselves but if they be Inherent Accidents they subsist in Nature and Substance and therefore though they may distinguish Hypostases and Persons do not constitute an Hypostasis and therefore are owned to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar distinguishing Marks and Characters of Hypostases or Persons whereby they are known from each other But the Marks and Characters which distinguish Hypostases are not the Hypostases themselves such as the Time when they were born the Place where they lived their Parentage Name Features of Body Endowments of Mind and a hundred other distingushing Marks for these are very different in different Persons and as changeable in the same Persons as Time Age Place Features of Body Endowments of Mind Trades Offices c. and yet all these are Persons and the same Persons under all these Changes Now setting aside all these Characters and Accidents which cannot make a Person but only distinguish one Person from another there is nothing left to be the Hypostasis or Person but only the common Nature subsisting by it self Common as it is the same in every Individual but an Hypostasis or Individuum by a separate Existence or subsisting by it self For an Individuum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one undivided Whole subsisting by it self and therefore a whole perfect undivided Human Nature subsisting by it self is an Hypostasis or Person one single individual Man though there were no other Mark and Character to distinguish him from other Men but only this Separate Subsistence The Humanity of our Saviour is a plain Demonstration of this that it is only a Separate Existence or subsisting by it self which in Created Beings is the same thing that makes Human Nature an Hypostasis or Person All Catholick Christians own that Christ took Human Nature on him but not a Human Hypostasis or Person and therefore in him we may see the difference between Nature and Person What then was Christ's Human Nature I know no more of it but that he had a true Body of Flesh animated by a Reasonable Soul such a Body and such a Soul as other Men have and this is Human Nature But why is not this Human Body and Soul a Human Person too Did he want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some peculiar Marks and Characters to distinguish him from all other Human Persons By no means He had more of these Marks of Distinction and more Authentick ones than any other Man ever had The Time and Place of his Birth his Parentage his Miracles his Doctrine the minute Circumstances of his Death his Resurrection c. were foretold by Ancient Prophets and he distinguished himself from all the rest of Mankind by those wonderful things he did that if peculiar distinguishing Characters make a Person he was more a Person than ever any Man was before or since What then was wanting to make us Human Nature a Human Person Truly nothing but only subsisting by it self which it never did but in union to the Eternal Word This I think looks very like a Demonstration that an Hypostasis is nothing but Nature subsisting by it self for all that the Humanity of Christ had without being a Human Person cannot make a Person for then the Human Nature of Christ must have been a Human Person too and that which alone was wanting to make the Human Nature of Christ a Person which was subsisting by it self must be the only thing which makes Nature a Person I have the rather chose this Instance because the Humanity of Christ which is no Person is often alledged to prove that there must be some peculiar mode of Subsistence which must coalesce with common Nature to make a Person This I confess is Language which I do not understand if there be any thing more meant by i◠than that Nature subsisting by it self is a Person For Nature which does not subsist is nothing but in Idea and Subsistence is a mere Notion without something that subsists now we may unite these two Notions of Nature and Subsistence and form the Idea of a Subsisting Nature which is all the coalescing I know of but actual Production makes a Subsisting Nature which is not Nature and Subsistence or a mode of Subsistence coalescing but Nature in Act. In a Subsisting Created Nature which does not necessarily exist we may distinguish between the Notions of Nature and Subsistence but a Subsisting Nature is nothing but Nature in being Nature which is that is Nature it self for the meer Idea of Nature is not Nature But Subsistence has a Mode and there must be a peculiar manner of Subsistence to make a Person Must every Person then have a peculiar manner of Subsistence Are there then as many peculiar Manners and Modes of Subsistence as there are or ever have been or ever shall be distinct Persons in the World This is beyond my Philosophy I have heard of a Compleat and Incompleat Subsistence to subsist by it self or to subsist as a Part in the Whole or an Accident in a Subject c. but I never could understand that any other Subsistence strictly belongs to the Notion of an Hypostasis or Person but to subsist by it self The Human Nature of Christ did upon all other Accounts as truly and properly subsist as any other Man in the World but was no Person as not subsisting by it self but in Union to the Eternal Word which made it the Human Nature of the Word which was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us All this Talk about the different Modes and manner of Subsistence seems to be a mistake of the Fathers Doctrine concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which these Men translate Modes of Subsistence of which more anon but at present I only observe That the Fathers do not place the Personality of