Beveridge on Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

which we in English call God, is not here made a distinct article of our faith in England, because it is an article of faith in all nations through the whole world: there being no *language so barbarous but it hath some word or other signifying the same thing in it; nor any people so atheistical as not to acknowledge and worship the thing

® The Sclavonian tongue express- eth the same thing by Buch, the Panonian by Istu, the French by Dieu, the Italian by Dio and Iddio, the Polonian by Buog, the Egyptians by Teut, the Spanish by Dios, the German by Gott, the Belgic by Godt, the Magi by Orsi, &c. And as for the learned languages, the Latin Deus, the Greek Gecds, the

Hebrew im Jehovah, and 0°7>x Elohim, the Chaldee 728 Elah, and wax Elaha, the Syriac [aS Aloho, and {s¢So Morio, the Arabic a)§ Ilahon, and x)\J§ Allaho, the Ethiopic ALVA Amlac, and

[…]

B

2 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

signified by it. Nay, rather than err on one hand in worshipping no God at all, most err on the other hand in worshipping more than ? one: there being no nation but worships some God, some nations worship many. Hence, I say, it is, that, in the determining of the distinct and fundamental articles of faith professed by our church of England, it would have been altogether superfluous to have made the existence of a Deity any of them; that being no more than what is undoubtedly acknowledged in all nations, and necessarily supposed in all religions; and so in this of ours also: for in that it is a religion, or a special and peculiar manner of performing worship to God, it must needs suppose there is some God to whom such worship is to be performed. And in this sense, the existence of a Deity, as the foundation of all religion, is necessarily implied in every one of these ensuing articles; and therefore also it need not be made a distinct article of itself.

Supposing therefore the existence of a Deity, this the first part of this first article only expresseth the unity of that Deity that doth exist. The first hath been acknowledged by all; the second denied by many heretofore; yea, and now too, though not amongst us, yet in other parts of the world, as in Africa and America, where they worship sun, moon, stars and other creatures, yea, have almost as many gods worshipped by men as there are men to worship them; every one, according to his own fancy, framing to himself a Deity, and then performing worship to it. To keep out therefore such extravagant fancies from amongst us, it is here set down as the foundation of all our fundamental articles, that there is but “ one living and true God:” where we also have not only our one God opposed to their many, but differenced from every one of them. They havé many, but they are all dead and false gods; we have but one, but he is the living and the true God. The living God, who hath life both in and from himself; who is not only the abyss of life in himself, but the fountain of life to us; who lives upon nothing but himself, and hath all things living upon himself; yea, who is so the living God, as to be life itself: so that it cannot be so

all MS.

ic Of the Holy Trinity. 3

properly said, that he hath life, as that he is life; life to himself, and life to all living creatures. What we Chave is really distinguished from what we are. And therefore when we speak of God, in whom there is no distinction of one perfection from another, or. of any of them from himself, we speak more agreeably to his nature, and more conformably to his truth, when we say he is, rather than hath such a perfection ; he is wisdom, he is power, he is goodness, he is justice, and so, he is 4life itself: especially when we consider, that he is usually and truly apprehended as the most pure and simple act; which exactly answers the right notion of that which we term Jif.

And our God being thus the living, he must needs be the true God. Many of the heathens, I confess, worshipped living creatures, which notwithstanding were false gods; not because living, but because creatures, and therefore so living, as not to live of themselves, much less to be life itself, but to derive it from another: and so the borrowed life of theirs could speak them no more than false gods; but the uncre- ated, original life of ours proclaims him to be the true God. Where the words true God are not to be extended so far as to signify a God of truth, but only in truth a God: though that other is necessarily included in this; for he that is in

Si enim non tantum se

¢ Tu aliud es, aliud habes. Verbi gratia, habes sapientiam: numquid tu es Sapientia? Denique quia non es tu ipse quod habes, si amiseris quod habes, reddis ut non habeas: et aliquando resumis, aliquando amittis. Quomodo oculus noster non in seipso habet inseparabiliter lucem, aperitur et capit, clauditur et amittit. Non sic Deus Dei Filius, non sic est Verbum Patris: sic habet sapientiam, ut ipse sit Sa- pientia, faciatque sapientes: sic ha- bet vitam, ut sit ipse Vita, faciatque viventes. Aug. [vol. III. par. IL.] in Joh, ‘Tract. 48. [6.]

se diligit. intelligit quantum vivit, nequaquam summa Sapientia erit; et si non tantum se diligit quantum se intel- ligit, summa Dilectio minime existit. Aug. [vol. VI.] de cognit. vere vitee, [Append.] c. 19: and thus he attributes other perfections also to him in the abstract; as, Et hee Trinitas unus est Deus _ solus, bonus, magnus, eternus, omni- potens: ipse sibi Unitas, Deitas, Magnitudo, Bonitas, Omnipotentia. Id. de temp. serm. 38. [Alcuin. de Trin. I. 6.] Nefas autem est dicere, ut subsistat et subsit Deus bonitati sue, atque illa bonitas non sub- stantia sit vel potius essentia, neque ipse Deus sit bonitas sua, sed in illo sit tanquam in subjecto. Id. de Trinit. 1. 7. c. 3. [vol. VIII, 1. vii. ro. |}

BQ

A Of the Holy Trinity. Art. truth a God must needs be a God of truth, truth bemg a perfection, and so necessarily required to the right notion of a Deity. And thus it is that there 1s but one living and true God, and therefore true, because living: and that there is but one living and true God is a truth grounded upon scripture, agreeable to reason, and taught by the fathers long ago. First for scripture. And truly to find out scripture to prove this truth I need not turn over many leaves, for there is scarce a page that I can cast mine eye upon in my first opening of the Bible, but would furnish me with sufficient arguments for it. But I shall content myself with these three or four of the most prevalent and convincing. The first place is that, ©Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one God, Deut. vi. 4: where we may plainly see, that that God, whom Israel, and so we are bound to worship, is no more than one. But because this place hath been impugned by several heretics in the church, as Valentinus, Basilides, and others, affirming it to import no more than one in will and one in heart, as the multitude of believers are said to be, Acts iv. 32; so, say they, though there be many gods, yet they all agree in one, and so may be said to be one, as he that planteth and he that watereth is said to be one, 1 Cor. iii. 8; because this place, I say, hath been so eluded, I shall produce others, upon which it is impossible to force such a distinction : as, Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above and upon earth beneath: and there is none else. Deut. iv. 39. Where we see it is expressly avouched, that the Lord Jehovah is the only God, besides whom there is no other God in heaven or earth, and so in no place in the world.

e In Hebrew it is Tim) SRI) Yow Mx 77 19758 in which words the Jews observe there be two litere ma- juscule, viz.» at the end of »ynw and + at the end of 17x; as for the first, viz. », they say it was made greater than the other letters, to put us more in mind of the great truth we are there taught and commanded to hearken to; and as for the second, viz. 1 (that makes for our purpose), they say it is made larger to shew that there is but one God in all the

four quarters of the world, and so no other God in heaven or earth, or any part of the world, but only Jehovah: for 1 in Hebrew numbers makes four; and both these letters being put together, as they here stand, viz. first » and then 4, they make up the word ty @ witness; as if he should say, The Lord is a witness against you, as Mic. i. 2. or, You are witnesses unto me, as Isai. xlili. to. that the Lord our God is but one God.

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 5

And therefore he is not only one in will, but one in nature: there is no other God besides him, to be of the same will with him. And to the same purpose it is elsewhere asserted, L am the Lord, there is none else, there is no God besides me. Isa. xlv. 5. So that Valentinus may assert, and the heathens may worship many deities, but the Lord hath spoken it, and the scriptures affirm it, that there is no God besides Jehovah: and that not only in the places cited, but others also, as Deut. xxxii. 39; Isa. xliv. 6, 8; ch. xly. Qi. 29. Mal. i. 10. And what the Old Testament asserts, the New Testament confirms, that there is none other God but one, 1 Cor. viii. 4; who is the living and the true God. 1 Thess. EO Jer. x.10,—

Neither is this so high a mystery as to be out of the sight of reason, and therefore only to be embraced by faith: for if we consult our reason, as we have done the scriptures, we shall find that as clear in concluding, as this is express in affirming of this truth. Indeed there is scarce an argument can be produced to prove the existence of a Deity, but may easily be brought over to prove the unity of that Deity also that doth exist. So that the same weapons that reason useth to beat down atheism, she may use also in her conflicts with polytheism: there is no god, and there are many gods, being propositions of the like absurdity in her account.

The usual reason that is brought for the existence of a Deity is taken from the order of causes: to wit, because there must be some fone cause of all causes, which is the first cause of all other things, itself being caused by nothing, without which all causes would run in a circle, and never come to an end, but must pass from one to another even into infinitude itself: which reason looks upon as the greatest absurdity in the world: for then there would be eternal changes and motions within the narrow compass of time, and finite causes would have no end, and so become infinite: which being a plain contradiction, I need not bring any arguments to prove its further absurdity; but, from the undeniable order and

[…]

6 Of the Holy Trinity. Ary. dependence of all causes upon one, must conclude, that there must be such an universal first cause, upon which all the rest must thus depend. And truly this argument proves as much, that there can be no more than one, as that there must be one such universal cause, which we call God. It being as great an absurdity to say there are many, as to say there is never a first cause. For, supposing many universal causes, either one must be before another, or one must not be before another. If one be not before another, none of them is the first cause, because there be others of equal causality with itself: if one be still before another, one of them must needs be before all the rest, and it is he alone that can be called the First Cause, because all the rest come after him.

If after this we take a view of those perfections, which reagon certainly concludes to be all concentred in the Deity, we shall clearly see, it is impossible they should be in more than one: so that to say they are in many, would be as much as to say they are in none at all. As first, supremacy, which is a perfection whereby we apprehend God as being the supreme Governor over all the world: which if he be not, our reason will not suffer us to call him God; nothing coming under the notion of a Deity, but what is above all other things whatsoever. Now if there should be many gods, either all of them should be equal to one another, or else one above another, as I said before. If they be all equal to one another, there is never a superior, much less a supreme amongst them, and so never a one that in reason can be termed a God ; they all wanting the great perfection of supremacy or sovereignty over all the world. If they be all one above another, there must be one above all the other; and it is he alone that can be called God: and what we here say concerning supremacy in power, may be applied also to supremacy in greatness, goodness, or any other perfection: for there can be but one chief good, and by consequence but one God.

& This is the argument which I find Anselme, archbishop of Canter- bury, elegantly deducing the unity of the Godhead from. Quod autem, saith he, Unus solus sit Deus, et non plures, hine facile probatur ;

quia aut Deus non est summum bo- num, aut sunt plura summa bona, aut non sunt plures Duii, sed unus solus. Deum vero summum bonum esse nemo negat ; quia, quicquid ali~ quo minus est, nullatenus Deus est,

i. Of the Holy Trinity. i’

Again, infinitude in general is also a perfection, which reason cannot but attribute to God, and to none but God, whereby we apprehend him as without bounds and limits of his nature and glory; which it is impossible for any more than one to be. For if one be without bounds, and so every where, where can any other be, especially how can any other be without bounds and every where too? Or more plainly, supposing two Gods, one essentially distinct from the other, where one of them is, the other also either is or is not: if the other be where that one is, then they are both together, and so their natures and glories confounded, and by consequence they are not essentially distinct Gods; if the other be not where that one is, then it hath bounds and limits to its nature and glory, there being somewhere where his nature and glory is not; and therefore he cannot be termed infinite, and con- sequentially he is no God.

Again, omnipotence is also a perfection, whereby God is not only infinite in nature, but in power, and so able to do whatsoever in its own nature doth not imply a contradiction, num unicum sit necesse est: ergo et Deus unicus erit: non aliter Deus, nisi summum magnum: nec aliter summum nisi parem non habens: nec aliter parem non ha- bens, nisi unicus fuerit. Id. advers. Marc. lib. 1. [c. 3.] prius cit.

[…]

et quicquid summum bonum non est, minus est aliquo, quia minus est summo bono. Summum certe bo- num pluralitatem sui non admittit, ut plura sint summa bona. Si enim plura sunt summa bona, paria sunt. Summum ergo bonum est, quod sic prestat aliis bonis, ut nec par ha- beat, nec prestantius. Summum ergo bonum unum et solum est;

non igitur sunt plures Dii, sed unus et solus est Deus. Sicut summum bonum est unum et solum, sic sum- ma substantia, vel essentia, sive na- tura, que eadem ratione, qua sum- ma, nullatenus pluraliter dici posse probantur. Anselm. de incarnat. Verbi c. 4. [p. 85. D.] And long before him ‘Tertullian; Duo ergo summa magna quomodo consistent, cum hoc sit summum magnum par non habere? par autem non habere, uni competat, in duobus esse nullo modo possit. Adv. Marcion. l. I. [c. 3.] Deum autem unum esse Oportet: quia quod summum sit, Deus est : summum autem non erit, nisi quod unicum fuerit. Id. adv. Herm. [c. 4.] Porro summum mag-

[…]

8 Of the Holy Trinity. Art: or is possible to be done by any power. Now it is impossible there should be two essentially distinct persons endowed with this perfection. For, supposing two such persons, what one doth will easily be granted to be possible, in its own nature, to be done; for otherwise he could not do it: but though it be possible in itself, yet is it impossible for the other supposed God to do it: for then there would be two whole and perfect causes of the same kind to one effect; which is a contradic- tion: for then one would be wholly the cause, and yet not wholly the cause, because there is another, that is as much the cause as itself. And therefore there can be no more than one such person invested with this perfection of ‘Omnipotence, and so but one God. And if we do suppose several Gods of the greatest power imaginable, every one of them must needs have less power than all together, and by consequence not all power in his own hands: and that being that hath not all power is no All-powerful being, and therefore no God.

But I needed not to have gone so far to have proved there are some perfections which it is impossible for many essentially distinct persons to be possessed of: for indeed unity itself is a perfection, which whosoever saith more than one can have at the same time, gives himself the lie. For if they be many essentially distinct Gods, how can they all be but one? And therefore whatsoever other perfections many Gods may have, be sure this they must want, upon that very account, because

i This argument from omnipo- tence Lactantius long ago made use of. Quis dubitet potentissimum esse regem, qui totius orbis habeat imperium? neque immerito: cum illius sint, que ubique sunt omnia : cum ad eum solum omnes undique copiz congerantur. At si plures partiuntur orbem: minus certe opum, minus virium singuli ha- bebunt, cum intra preescriptam por- tionem se quisque contineat. Eodem etiam modo Dii, si plures sint, mi- nus valebunt, aliis tantundem in se habentibus. Virtutis autem per- fecta natura non potest esse nisi in eo in quo totum est, non in eo in quo pars exigua de toto est. Deus vero, si perfectus est, (nam per- fectus est,) ut esse debet, non potest

esse, nisi unus, ut in eo sint omnia. Lactant. de falsa relig. c. 3. [p. 10.] Nemo est quidem qui sapiat ratio- nemque secum putet qui non unum esse intelligat, qui et condiderit om- nia, et eadem, qua condidit, virtute moderetur. Quid enim multis opus est ad mundi regimen sustinendum ? Nisi forte arbitremur, si plures sint, minus habere singulos nervorum atque virium. Quod quidem fa- ciunt ii, qui esse multos volunt: quia necesse est, imbecilles esse: siquidem singuli sine auxilio reli- quorum tantze molis gubernaculum sustinere non possent. Deus autem, qui est eterna mens, ex omni utique parte perfectee consummatzeque vir- tutis est. Quod si verum est; unus sit, necesse est. Ibid. [p. 9.]

4% Of the Holy Trinity. 9

they are many: and so cannot be all perfectly Gods, because not perfect Gods, wanting some perfection which God must have, or not be God: and therefore, I conclude even from reason, that seeing in the order of causes there must be one, and but one first cause; and seeing there can be no more than one Being absolutely supreme, infinite, omnipotent, and one, “ There is but one living and true God.”

And this was the doctrine which the fathers of old taught, I shall instance but only in some: as first Tertullian: k “But the Christian truth strictly saith, God, if he be not one, he is none: for whatsoever is not as it ought to be, we think better of it, if we believe it not to be. But that thou mayest know that God should be but one, inquire what God is, and thou wilt find it cannot be otherwise. As far as the human state ean define any thing of God, I assert, what every one’s con- science also acknowledgeth, that God is the chief and highest Being in the world, eternal, unbegotten, unmade, without beginning, without end. Therefore he must needs be one only, because he is the chiefest, not having an equal, lest he should not be the chiefest.”. And before him Ignatius: 1« Therefore God and the Father is but one, not two or three ; he being one, and there is none besides him, the alone true God. For, The Lord, saith he, thy God is one Lord. And again, did not one God make us? have not we all one Father?” And Justin Martyr tells us, that, ™“ According

[…]

pronunciavit: Deus, si non unus est, non est; quia dignius credimus non esse, quodcunque non ita fuerit ut esse debebit. Deum autem ut scias unum esse debere, quere quid sit Deus, et non aliter invenies. Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, id definio, quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet : Deum, summum esse magnum, in zeternitate constitutum, innatum, in- fectum, sine initio, sine fine-—Ergo unicum sit necesse est, quod fuerit summum magnum, par non ha- bendo, ne non sit summum mag- num. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. 1. Res3.|

[…]

ART.

10 Of the Holy Trinity.

to those, who by learning know the difference betwixt God and a creature, there is but one God, unbegotten, according to both the manners of unbegetting, who hath not any gods either before or after himself, having none coeternal with him- self, none subject or opposite to him, having an incorruptible nature and irresistible power, himself being the maker of the whole world.” And Athenagoras to the same purpose : ” “ But all our discourse is only to shew that there is but one God, the maker of the universe, who himself being not made (for that which is, is not made, but that which is not) he made all things by his word.” St. Cyprian: °“ Therefore there is one God, Lord of all; for his highness cannot have an equal, see- ing himself hath all power in his own hand.” And presently : p“The bees have one king, the flocks one eaptain, and the herds one leader, much more hath the world but only one Governor, who commandeth all things with his word, dis- penseth all things with his wisdom, and perfecteth all things by his power. He cannot be seen, he is more clear than sight ; nor comprehended, he is more pure than touch; nor valued, for he is beyond all sense: and therefore we so worthily esteem of him to be God, when we think him inestimable.” And Ruffinus not only tells us that, but shews us how God is said to be one: 4“ But that which we said that the Eastern churches deliver, that the Father is omnipotent, and only one

[…]

P Rex unus est apibus, et dux unus in gregibus, et in armentis rector unus: multo magis mundi unus est rector, qui universa, que- cunque sunt, verbo jubet, ratione dispensat, virtute consummat. Hic enim videri non potest, visu clarior est: nec comprehendi, tactu purior est: nec estimari, sensu major est ; et ideo sic eum digne estimamus,

dum ineestimabilem dicimus. Jd. And Minutius Felix in his Octavius doth not only use the same arguments, but the same words too. Whence we may gather, that one had not only seen, but borrowed from the other: and it is probable Cyprian from Minutius, who was about thirty years his senior.

4 Quod autem diximus orientis ecclesias tradere patrem omnipoten- tem et unum Dominum, hoc modo intelligendum est; enum non nu- mero dici, sed universitate. Verbi gratia. i quis dicit unum homi- nem, aut unum equum, hic unum pro numero posuit; potest enim et alius homo esse, et tertius, vel equus, Ubi autem secundus, vel tertius non potest jungi, unus si dicatur, non numeri, sed universitatis est nomen,

nr Of the Holy Trinity. 11

Lord, it is to be understood after this manner ; one, not in numbers but in universality. As for example, if one should Say, One man, or one horse, here he puts one for a number, for there may be another man and a third; and so for one horse too: but where a second or third cannot be added, if any thing be called one, that doth not denote number, but universality : as for example, if we should say, one sun; that is so called one, that a second or third cannot be added: the sun is one. Much more when God is called one, one is a word, not of number, but universality; that is, he is therefore called one, because there is no other. And so we must think also of our Lord, that there is one Lord Jesus-Christ, by whom the Father governs all things; so that God is so one, as no one besides him is: he is so one God, as that there is not, there cannot be another God besides him.” And therefore saith Tertullian also’: “The state of the one only God challengeth this rule, no otherwise one, than because alone, nor otherwise alone, than because there is nothing with him.” Shall I thrust in a learned rabbi amongst these reverend fathers? Moses Maimonides speaks fully to the purposes: “ This God is one, not two nor more than two; but one, whose unity is not like that of the ones or individuals that are found in the world; nor one by way of species containing several indivi- duals under it; nor one, as a body is, which may be divided into several parts or extremities; but he is so one, as that there is no one in the world so one as he is.” And it is one of the articles of the Jews’ faith, “I verily believe that the

Ut si, exempli causa, dicamus unum solem, hic unus ita dicitur, ut alius vel tertius addi non possit: unus est sol. Multo magis Deus, cum unus dicitur, non numeri, sed universi- tatis vocabulo nuncupatur, id est, qui propterea unus dicitur, quod alius non sit. Similiter, et de Do- mino accipiendum est, quod unus sit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem Deus pater Dominatum omnium tenet. Ruffin. in exp. symb. [ad calc. Cypriani opp. p. 18. Oxon. 1682. ]

[…]

solius, nec aliter solius, nisi quia nihil cum illo. Tertull. adv. Herm. c. Hh

S DW 8D IDR RIT TAR AT TON PRO ITN NON DW Oy IM Nd) 2 RITW por mR xd tp) ya NW FI INN RD) TIT IRN TON ROR Mmsp>) mporn>d pom Dov. ynND INN TT paw R, Mosch. bar Maimon, de fundament, leg. [I. 4.]

t ITD WNW WIWNI POND DN VDD NPP py TP RT WOW PAIN? Mio 735 NIT) sp Dw. .w-py wo «aay a7 Vid. et Maim, in Sanh. c. 10. et Buxt. Synag. Jud,

Coie (pues

Art.

12 Of the Holy Trinity.

Creator, whose name is Blessed, is one, and there is no unity like to his, and he alone was, is, and will be our God.” To these testimonies we may add that of Lactantius also¥: “ Let us come to authors, and cite those very persons for the proof of this truth, which they use to bring against us. It is the poets and philosophers I mean. It is necessary, that out of these we should prove there is but one God; not as if they had the right knowledge of the truth, but because so great is the power of truth, that none can be so blind as not to see the Divine splendour foreing itself into his eyes. The poets therefore, though they set out the gods with verses, and extol their acts with the highest praises, yet they often confess, that by one spirit and mind all things are contained and governed.” And truly there are many of the ancient heathen” poets, which have left this truth upon record in their writings, as Orpheus, Phocylides, Sophocles, Xenophanes, Colophonius, the Sibyls, and others, whose testimonies we have thrown into the margin: by which we may see that this truth is both grounded upon scripture, concluded upon by reason, preached by the Fathers, believed by the Jews, yea, and acknowledged

u Veniamus ad auctores, et eos ipsos ad veri probationem testes ci-~ temus, quibus contra nos uti solent ; poetas dico et philosophos. Ex his unum Deum probemus, necesse est : non quod illi habuerint cognitam veritatem, sed quod veritatis ipsius tanta vis est, ut nemo possit esse tam cecus, qui non viderit ingeren- tem se oculis divinam claritatem. Poetz igitur, quamvis Deos carmi- nibus ornaverint, et eorum. res ges- tas amplificaverint summis laudi- bus, sepissime tamen confitentur, spiritu et mente una contineri regi- que omnia. Lactant. de Falsa Relig. c. 5. [p. 14.]

v For this purpose is Orpheus cited not only by this author, Lac- tantius, but Justin Martyr also, who tells us, that though Orpheus was the first author of polytheism, yet afterwards he taught that there was but one God, in these verses: HOeytomar ois O€uis earl, Oipas 8 em-

Gece BEBnaAox

[…]

éparat. [p- 447.]

And again, [p. 455-]

[…]

And Sophocles [Excerpt. e tragced. ed. H. Grotio, p. 149.] cited by the

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 13

by the Gentiles also, and therefore it may well be subscribed to by us, even that there is but one living and true God.

Everlasting.

After the unity of the Godhead asserted, here we have the nature of that one God described ; and that by those proper- ties, which the scriptures, that he hath revealed to us, and the reason that he hath implanted in us, attribute and ascribe unto him. Where by properties we are not to understand several faculties, habits, or qualities, as they are in us. For there is nothing in God but what is God: the mercy of God is the same with the God of mercy; the power of God the same with the God of power; the love of God the same with the God of love; and the truth of God the same with the God of truth. These properties of mercy, power, love, &c., as they are in us, they are accidents, and so really distinguished both from our souls, and from one another: but as they are in God, they are his nature and essence ; and so neither distin- guished from one another, nor from him in whom they are

[…]

same author, as also by Athenagoras in legat. pro Christ.

[…]

moAvoaBos. ; And again, [p. 19. C.]

Orpheus again not cited by Justin Ey, ges ert udvapxos, abéodaros,

[…]

aibép: vatwy,

[…]

And truly these ancient poets, as Orpheus, Sophocles, &c., and par- ticularly the Sibyls, the Fathers in the infancy of the church made great use of to convince the Gentiles from their own authors, that there was but one God whom they ought to worship. And so indeed did St. Paul himself, disputing with the Greeks, cite their own poet Aratus against them, in those words,

[…]

ART.

14 Of the Holy Trinity.

said to be. Distinguished from him or his essence they can- not be, for then he would be of himself imperfect ; there being some property or perfection which in his own nature he is not. And again, if the properties of God should be really distinguished from himself, in themselves they would be either finite or infinite. Finite they could not all be ; for infinitude itself is one of his properties, yea, and in our conception a property of all his other properties: so that his wisdom, power, justice, are all infinite, otherwise they would be im- perfect: and therefore it is impossible all his properties, or indeed any of them, should be finite. And as they are not finite, so neither can they be infinite, if really distinguished from his essence: for then there would be something really distinguished from God infinite as well as God; and by con- sequence either God must not be infinite, and so not God; or else there must be two, yea, many infinites, which is as great an absurdity as the former. And therefore we must needs acknowledge, that the properties of God are not really distin- guished from the essence of God: but that the properties attributed to his essence are really the same with his essence to which they are attributed. So that his power, wisdom, goodness, truth, and the like, are all his “essence, nature, or substance. And as they are not distinguished from his essence, so neither are they distinguished from one another ; for then they must be really distinguished from his essence too, it being impossible that they should be all really and essentially distinct from one another, and yet be all but one and the selfsame essence. And again, if they should be really

u There are many expressions in St. Augustine intimating and ex- plaining this unto us, that the pro- perties of God are the same with his essence. Homo aliud est, saith he, quod est, aliud quod potest, &c, Deus autem cui non est alia sub- stantia ut sit, et alia potestas ut pos- sit, sed consubstantiale illi est quic- quid ejus est, et quicquid est quia Deus est, non alio modo est, et alio modo potest, sed esse et posse simul habet, quia velle et facere simul ha- bet. Aug. her II. par. II.] in Joh. Tract. 20. [4.] Non alia visio ejus,

et alia substantia ejus; nec alia po- tentia ejus, alia substantia ejus; to- tum quod est, (filius) de patre est, totum quod potest, de patre est: quoniam ‘quod potest et est hoc unum est. [Ibid. 8.] Si enim, quod pauci intelligunt, simplex est natura veritatis; hoc est filio (Deo) esse quod nosse. Ab illo ergo habet ut noverit, a quo habet ut sit: non ut prius ab illo esset, et ab illo postea nosset ; sed quemadmodum illi gi- gnendo dedit ut esset, sic gignendo dedit ut nosset: quia simplici, ut dictum est, nature veritatis esse et

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 15

distinguished from one another, then God would be com- pounded or made up of several distinct properties, and so not a simple, and therefore not a perfect God.

But by the properties therefore of God, we are to understand the several apprehensions that we have of him, according to the several manifestations that he maketh of himself to us. Which variety of discoveries of himself he maketh to us according to the variety of the objects which we apprehend him to act upon, and the variety of the circumstances that those objects may lie under. God in himself is a most simple and pure act, and therefore, as I have shewed, cannot have any thing in himself but himself, but what is that pure and simple act itself. Which seeing it bringeth upon every crea- ture what it deserves, giving vice its due punishments, and yirtue its just rewards, we apprehend it an act of justice, and therefore call God a just God. Seeing it doth not give sin its punishments sometime so soon as we conceive it might, we apprehend it an act of patience, and call God a patient God. Seeing it doth still one time or other punish every offence, and yet upon some other account doth often pardon the offender, we apprehend it an act of mercy, and call God a merciful God. Seeing whensoever it puts forth itself upon doing any thing, it produceth whatsoever itself pleaseth, we apprehend it an act of might, and call God an almighty God. Seeing it acting upon objects, as possible to be known, it is acquainted with all things, that ever were, are, shall be, or can be, we apprehend it an act of knowledge, and call God an all- knowing God. Seeing it brings upon all creatures many such

nosse, non est aliud atque aliud, sed hoc ipsum. Ibid. Tract. 40. [5.] Nefas autem est dicere ut subsistat et subsit Deus bonitati suz, atque illa bonitas non substantia sit vel potius essentia; neque ipse Deus sit bonitas sua, sed sit in illo tanquam in subjecto. Id. de Trinit. 1.7. c. 5. {vol. VIII. 1. vii. 1o.] And the council at Rhemes, an. 1148, in their confession of faith expressly say, Credimus et confitemur simplicem naturam divinitatis esse Deum nec

[…]

quin divinitas sit Deus, et Deus di-

vinitas. Sicubi vero dicitur, domini sapientia sapientem, magnitudine magnum, divinitate deum esse, et alia hujusmodi, credimus non nisi ea sapientia qu est ipse Deus sapi- entem esse, non nisi ea magnitudine que est ipse deus magnum esse, non nisi ea zeternitate que est ipse deus zternum esse, non nisi ea unitate unum que est ipse, non nisi ea di- vinitate Deum que est ipse, id est seipso sapientem, magnum, eter-~ num, unum Deum. Concil. Rhem. fid. symb. [vol. VI. par. II. p,

16 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

as we think good things, we apprehend it an act of goodness, and call God a good God. Seeing there are no bounds or limits of his essence and glory, we apprehend it an act of infi- nitude, and call God an infinite God. And seeing this God ever was, is, and will be the same unchangeable, pure and simple act, we apprehend it an act of eternity, and so call God an eternal God. And thus are the several properties that we attribute to God but the several apprehensions that we have in ourselves of him, according to the several disco- veries that he maketh of himself to us: and therefore though, as they are conceived by us, they are many, yet, as they are in him, they are all but one and the same simple and pure essence. And hence it is, that though his properties cannot be properly predicated one of another, so as to say his justice is his mercy, his wisdom is his power, his eternity is his love, yet they may all be predicated of God, so as to say God is justice, God is mercy, God is wisdom, power, and eternity. Neither can they only be predicated of God, but God may be predicated of them too, so as to say, justice in God is God, mercy is God, power is God ; for as they are in himself they are really himself, yea, so as that if we consider the properties of God as they are in himself, I do not deny but they may in some sense, though improperly, be x predicated one of another, so as to say his justice is his mercy, his love is his power; for as they are in him there is no such distinction betwixt justice and merey, love and power, as there is when apprehended by us. But seeing the properties of God do not so much denote what God is, as what we apprehend him to be in himself, when the properties of God are predicated one of another, one thing in God is not predicated of another, but

x Thus St. Augustine saith: An totus ille visus et totus auditus? forte ita, imo non forte sed vere ita: dum tamen et ipsum ejus videre et ipsum ejus audire longe alio modo

uam nostrum sit; et videre et au- ire simul in verbo est: nec aliud ibi est audire et aliud videre, sed auditus visus, et visus auditus. Aug. rr IL. par. II.] in Joh. Tract. 18. g.| Where we see he predicates visus of auditus, and auditus of

visus ; and so one property in God of another. Not as if these properties were distinct in God, and so capable of making the subject and predicate of a proposition ; but in such pro- positions as these are, visus est au- ditus, and auditus visus, justitia est misericordia, and misericordia est justitia, in these, I say, and such like propositions we are to under- ‘stand both the subject and predi- cate as in God, but still with some

as Of the Holy Trinity. 17

our apprehensions of the same thing are predicated one of another. So that when I say, God’s justice is his mercy, his power is his wisdom, I do not predicate one perfection in God of another, for in God there are not any such distinct perfec- tions as that one of them should properly make the subject and the other the predicate of a proposition, but I only pre- dicate one apprehension that I have of the same Divine nature of the other. For as they are in God, they are not really distinct, I say, from one another; and therefore cannot pro- perly be subjects and predicates to one another; and the seve- ral denominations of love, goodness, justice, mercy, and the like, are grounded merely upon our several apprehensions of the same thing: which several apprehensions proceed from the finiteness of our understandings, who are not able to con- ceive of infinitude, or an infinite nature, as it is in itself, but only by piecemeal, as it manifesteth itself to us. And there- fore God, whose understanding is infinite, suitable to his nature, doth not apprehend himself under the distinct notions of good, just, powerful, wise, &c., but only as God; though he doth understand how we give such denominations to him, ac- cording to the several apprehensions that we have of him. Thus, therefore, carrying the right notion of the properties of God along with us, let us consider those properties which in this article are attributed to him; and the first is eternity. He is an everlasting God: which is a property, whereby we apprehend God, as one, who was before, and will be after, always without and above time; in whom there is no such thing as first and last, past and to come. And therefore though I cannot apprehend his mercy to Abel in the begin- * ning of the world, and his mercy to me now, but as two

reference to our distinct apprehen- sions of them. For seeing they are really the same in him, and yet are distinctly apprehended by us, we may well make one of them the sub- ject and the other the predicate of a proposition. When I say justitia est misericordia, here justitia and mise- ricordia are two distinct properties In my apprehension, though they sig-

nify one and the same thing in God, or rather one and the same God. And therefore when I say, God’s justice is his mercy, or his mercy is his justice, it is as much as if I should say, that perfection which I appre- hend in God to be justice is the same in him with his mercy, and that which I apprehend in him as mercy is the same in him with his justice.

18 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

distinct expressions of his mercy, yet as they are in God they are but one and the same act, as they are in God, I say, who is not measured by time, as our apprehensions of him are ; but is himself eternity: a centre without a circumference, eternity without time. Indeed when we speak of eternity, time is but as a parenthesis clasped in of both sides with it : neither is the eternity before time before that eternity that is after time ; for there is but one eternity. and these words, before and after, ¥ past and to come, are solecisms in eternity, being only fitted to express the several successions of time by. And thus do we believe that God is eternal or everlasting, not only as angels and rational souls are, who had a begin- ning but will have no end, but as one who never had a beginning, nor ever will have an end: but what he was before, he is in, and will be after time, the same unchangeable God ; not younger at the beginning of time, nor older at the end of time, but in every thing continually one and the same God blessed for evermore.

And for the true proof of this we shall first consult the scriptures: for there being none that knows God so well as himself, there is none can better tell what properties to attri- bute to him than himself; and therefore his word must needs be the best description of his essence. Now there is no property that the scriptures attribute to God more frequently than eternity, calling him, The eternal God, Deut. xxxiii. 27;

y Nec quid sit eternitas, nisi in- telligendo conspicio. Mentis enim aspectu omnem mutabilitatem ab zeternitate sejungo: et in ipsa eter- nitate nulla spatia temporis cerno ; quia spatia temporis preteritis et futuris rerum motibus constant. Nihil autem preterit in eterno, et nihil futurum est: quia et quod preterit, desinit, et quod futurum est, nondum esse ceepit. AXternitas autem tantummodo est, nec fuit quasi jam non sit, nec erit quasi adhue non sit. Qua propter sola ipsa verissime dicere potuit, Ego sum qui sum, et de illa verissime dici poterat, qui est misit me. Aug. de vera rel. c. 49. fin. [vol. I. 97.]

Et hoc vere habendum est zternum, quod nullo tempore variatur, sicut in principio erat Verbum. Id. [vol. IV.] in Psal. Ixxi. [8.] Atque in zternitate nec preteritum quicquam est, quasi esse desierit ; nec futurum, quasi nondum sit; sed presens tantum; quia quicquid eternum est, semper est. Id. in Ps. ii. [6.] AMternitas ipsa Dei substantia est, quee nihil habet mutabile ; ibi nihil est preeteritum, quasi jam non sit ; nihil est futurum, quasi nondum sit : sed non est ibi nisi, Est; non est ibi, Fuit et erit; quia et quod fuit, jam non est; et quod erit, nondum est: sed quicquid ibi est, nonnisi est. Id. in Ps. ci. Serm. 2. [10.]

if Of the Holy Trinity. 19

The King eternal, 1 Tim. i.17; The everlasting God, Gen. xxi. 33, Isai. xl. 28; The everlasting Father, Isai. ix.6; The living God, and an everlasting King, Jer. x.10; Yea, from everlasting to everlasting he is God, Psalm xe. 2; Who there- fore is to be blessed from everlasting and to everlasting, Psalm xli.13; Who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is, which was, and which is to come, Rev. i. 4,8. Not as if God in his own nature was, and is to come, for he always is; but in these and the like places God speaks after the manner of men, who are not able with one simple apprehension to conceive of eternity, but are still foreed to carry our thoughts backwards and forwards to apprehend what was heretofore and shall be hereafter: therefore he is here said to be He that was, viz., without beginning, that is, viz., without succession, and is to come, viz., without end. And therefore, when Moses would have God to give himself a name, he calls himself 2 J am what I am, and simply J am, Exod. iii. 14, viz.

z Interpreters differ much in translating of these words .wx WARK marx Some translating them, Ero, qui sum; others, Hro, qui ero; others, Sum, qui eram; others, Sum, qui sum: and there is none of these interpretations but without offering violence to grammar rules may be put upon them. But it being a proper name of God, im- plying not any one, but all of these senses; others thought it better to retain the Hebrew words themselves, especially the Oriental translators, as Onkelos mnx IwKX wWnEK the Syriac cua] pe] cuca] Samar.

AMAK AMA HAMAX the Persian ssd$ ya) da} Ehjeh asher Ehjeh. Only the Arabic doth not so much translate as expound the words, most excellently giving us the full meaning and purport of them, taking in all the foregoing

expositions in these words, shy¥ Ssy2 XY wd) #ternus sum qui non preterit. Which words shew

both what the words properly de- note, even the eternity of God; and

[…]

cQ

20 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

one who may always say I am, who always was, always 18, and always is to come; who from eternity was, who in eternity is, who to eternity is to come. Yea, who is. not only from eternity and to eternity, but who is eternity itself: and so is he called too as some suppose, (translating the word anetsahh eternity, which we translate strength,) 1 Sam. xv. 29. So well may he be called the Ancient of Days, Dan. vii. 9. and his kingdom be termed an everlasting kingdom, Dan. iv. 3. ; And as scripture is express, so is reason clear in attributing this property unto God. For first, eternity is a perfection, such a perfection without which the great God sometime would not have been, or sometimes will not be, and therefore can never be absolutely perfect, and so not God. And therefore all the arguments that prove the existence, prove also, not only the unity, but likewise the eternity of God. For what argument is an infallible proof of any truth, ever was and ever will be an infallible proof of it. But now if God ever was not, or ever would not be, (that is, if he be not eternal,) at such a time there would be no God; and therefore all the arguments that make for the existence of a Deity would then signify nothing: and go it is as certain a truth that God is eternal, as that he is. XPnpaTiope _ mpoonyopiav eéeidpev, God’s eternity. V. Allat. de cons.

[…]

ee dnow 6 av. Basil. advers. Eunom, a And so J find the word T¥} can

1. 2. [vol. I. p. 741 E.] St. Augus- tine, in his tenth tome, hath a peculiar treatise, De eo quod dictum est Ego sum qui sum, where amongst other things he saith, Quid est Ego sum qui sum nisi eternus sum? Quid est Ego sum qui sum nisi mutari non possum? Nulla crea- tura, non cclum, non terra, non angelus, non virtus, non sedes, non dominationes, non potestates. Cum ergo sit hoc nomen eternitatis, plus est quod dignatus est habere nomen misericordiz, Ego sum Deus Abra- ham, &c. Aug. de eo quod dictum est Ego sum qui sum. [vol. V. ser. vii. 7.]| Yea, and Plato himself gathered as much from these words, as we may see out of Justin Martyr, cited amongst the Fathers at the end of this discourse concerning

never be well translated otherwise than eternity, unless it be, Isai. Lxiii. 3, 6. Thren. iii. 18; but in these places also interpreters much differ in the translation of it, but always agree in other places in expounding it eternity, as Psal. xlix. 20. Isai. Xxxiv. 10. Job iv. 20, &c. and so in this place, 1 Sam. xv. 29, it being an epithet of God it may denote his eternity, as well as strength: yea indeed rather that than this; both because it is a doubt, whether it ever signify strength or no, and principally because that the other is the most usual and common sig- nification of it, which we are not to recede from in any place, that will as well bear it, as well as any other signification of it, as it will here.

Of the Holy Trinity. 2

Again, if God be not eternal he is temporal, that is, his essence and actions are measured by the motions and succes- sions of time, which being once granted, would quite take away his divinity: for then he would not be the first cause, and so not God; having time before him, whereby he is mea- sured, the thing measured always presupposing that which it is measured by.

And these arguments serve to prove his eternity in general, that he both was from eternity and will be to eternity. I shall now prove them severally: and first, that he was from eternity, that is, he ever was, or it could never be said, God is not, or there is no God. For if ever God was not, then he had a beginning; if he had a beginning, he must needs have it either from himself or from some other person. From himself he could not have it, for before he was, he could not act any thing, much less give himself a being or beginning ; nay, it is a contradiction to say, a thing is not, and yet it is, which notwithstanding must be a real truth, if God ever was not, and yet was the author of life to himself. And that he did not receive his being from another is as clear, for then he would not be the first cause, and so not God; there being another before him, which gave this being to him, and so was the cause of him. And that he shall be to eternity is also as evident as that he hath been from eternity; that he ever shall be, as that he ever was. For as if he was not from eternity he must have his beginning, so, if he be not to eternity he must have his end, either from himself or from some other. From any other he cannot; for all other persons and beings depend upon him, both for their existences and actions; and so can do nothing without his pleasure and con- currence: much less ean they ever destroy his essence who preserves theirs. From himself he cannot have an end, lose his existence, or fall to nothing. For if so, it must be either because he is not able or not willing to uphold himself in his being: that he is not unable is manifest, for there is no more power required to uphold himself to eternity than there was to uphold himself from eternity, which that he did we have before proved. And that he is not unwilling to uphold himself in his being to eternity is plain. For his will being

22 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

infinitely perfect, he cannot but will the better before the worse. Now for him to be must needs be better than for him not to be; for his essence and existence is the chiefest good, and therefore he must needs will, love, and choose that before all things in the world besides, much more before nothing, as himself would be, if he be not, or did not uphold himself in his being. And therefore as he was as able as willing to support himself from eternity, so must he needs be granted to be as willing as able to support himself in his being to eternity ; and therefore reason also concludes him to be an everlasting God.

But neither are the Fathers backward in ascribing this perfection to the Deity. Tertullian elegantly»: “There is no time in eternity, itself being all time. That which acts cannot suffer. That wanteth age, that cannot be born. God, if he be old, he will not be; if he be young, he was not. Novelty testifies a beginning, age threatens an end. But God is as far from beginning and end as he is from time, the measurer of beginning and ending.” And again: “¢For it belongeth to the Divine nature, whatsoever it hath decreed, to account as perfect: because with it there is no difference of time, with which eternity itself directs the uniform state of time.” And Justin Martyr tells us, “that Plato gathered as much from those words, J am what I am: ‘for Plato,” saith he, “being much pleased with that saying of God to Moses, F am what I am; and receiving or understanding with much contemplation the short word expressed by a participle, perceived how God, willing to signify his eternity to Moses,

b Non habet tempus eternitas. Omne enim tempus ipsa est. Quod facit, pati non potest. Caret etate, quod non licet nasci. Deus, si est vetus, non erit: si est novus, non fuit. Novitas initium testificatur : vetustas finem comminatur. Deus autem tam alienus ab initio et fine est, quam a tempore, arbitro et metatore initii et finis. Tertull. ady. Marcion. lib. 1. [c. 8.]

¢ Nam et divinitati competit, queecunque decreverit, ut perfecta reputare, quia non sit apud Nlam

[…]

EK Of the Holy Trinity. 23

said, J am what I am; the syllable am signifying not one, but three times, past, present, and to come.” (From whence we may also observe that Plato had seen the books of Moses.) And Minutius Felix saithe: “Dost thou believe that the supreme power in heaven is divided? and all the power of that true and divine empire to be parted? When it is manifest, that the Father of all things, God, hath neither beginning nor end; who bestows a nativity upon all things else, but a perpetuity upon himself: who was before the world, being a world unto himself.” And St. Augustine : “God only is immutable; because nothing that is past goes from him, neither will any thing that is to come be added to him: but whatsoever is, was, or is to come, is all present with him. And as we can think of nothing (in him) that had a beginning, so neither can we think of any thing in him that shall ever have an end.” And elsewhere, the same reverend Father in his heavenly meditations and confessions speaks thus to God: “8 But if there was no time before heaven and earth, why should any one ask, what thou then didst? For there was no then where there was no time: neither wast thou before time in time; for so thou wouldst not have been before all time. But thou art before all time

e Tu in ceelo summam potestatem

[…]

non omnia tempora precederes.

ac divini imperil totam potestatem ? cum palam sit parentem omnium nec principium habere nec termi- num; qui nativitatem omnibus prestat, sibi perpetuitatem, qui ante mundum fuerit sibi ipse pro mundo. Minut. Fel. in Octav. [xvii. 7.]

f Deus solus est immutabilis, quia nihil preteriti ei decedit, nihil futuri accedit: sed quicquid est vel fuit vel erit, totum sibi preesens adest : et sicut non potest cogitari quod aliquod initium habuerit, ita quoque non potest cogitari quod unquam finiri possit. August. [vol. VI.] de cognit. verze vitae, [Append.] c. 31.

& Si autem ante ccelum et terram nullum erat tempus, cur queritur quid tunc faciebas? Non enim erat tunc, ubi non erat tempus. Nec tu

Sed preecedis omnia tempora pre- terita celsitudine semper presentis zternitatis; et superas omnia fu- tura, quia et illa futura sunt, et cum venerint, preterita erunt, Tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient, Anni tui nec eunt nec veniunt: isti enim nostri et eunt et veniunt, ut omnes veniant. Anni tui omnes simul stant, quo- niam stant; nec euntes a venientibus excluduntur, quia non transeunt : Isti autem nostri omnes erunt, cum omnes non erunt. Anni tui dies unus; et dies tuus non quotidie sed hodie; quia hodiernus tuus non cedit crastino, neque enim succedit hesterno: Hodiernus tuus eeternitas ; ideo coeternum genuisti, cui dixisti, Ego hodie genwi te. Aug. [vol. I.] Confess. 1, xi, c. 1g. [1. xi. 15, 16. ]

24 Of the Holy Trinity. Art,

past, in the height of eternity always present ; and art above all things that are to come, because they are to come, and when they are come will be gone. But thow art the same, and thy years shall have no end; thy years do not go and come, but ours go and come, that they may all come. Thy years stand all together, because they always stand. Neither are they that go thrust out by them that come, because they do not pass away: but ours will all be when they will not all be. Thy years are but one day, and thy day is not every day, but to-day. For thy to-day doth not give place to fo- morrow: for neither did it come into the place of yesterday. Thy to-day is eternity; therefore didst thou beget one co- eternal with thyself to whom thou saidst, This day have I begotten thee.” Many other testimonies might be produced both from the Fathers and 5 others, but these are enough from whence to conclude as before from scripture and reason, that as there is but one living and true God, so this one living and true God is everlasting.

Without body, parts, and passions.

When we poor finite creatures set ourselves to consider of our infinite Creator, though we may apprehend something of him by ascribing all perfections to him, yet more by removing all imperfections from him. We cannot so well apprehend what he is, as what he is not. We can say indeed he is infinitely good, infinitely wise, in and of himself, eternal and all-sufficient: but alas! when we speak such words, we cannot apprehend the thing that is signified by them. Our understandings being themselves finite, they cannot appre- hend what it is to be infinite, and as they are imperfect, they cannot conceive of any perfection as it is in God. But now of imperfections we have the daily experience in ourselves, and therefore know the better how to abstract them all from our apprehensions of the Deity: and so the clearest

h As the Sibyls, Orac. 1. 2. [p. Yea, it is one of the articles of

19. C.] ae, 4 the Jews’ faith, 72oNI POND oN \ , é a >

[…]

éavrov, I believe perfectly, or with a perfect

Ovra Te kat mp eovra, atap made faith, that he is the first and the kal peremeira. last. V. Maim. in Sanh. e. ro.

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 25

apprehensions that we can have of him is by removing imperfections from him. I cannot conceive it, though I verily believe it, how he is of himself infinitely holy, just, and powerful; yet I can easily conceive how he is without body, parts, and passions; that he is not such a one as I am, who have a body, am compounded of parts, and am subject to passions: but whatsoever he is in himself, be sure he is infinitely above such imperfections as these are.

First, therefore, here it is said, he is i without body, that is, he is not made up of any material substance, but is a spirit, incorruptible, intangible, invisible, and indivisible; that cannot be seen, felt, nor heard by bodily senses, nor cor- rupted or divided by any means whatsoever. Of whom therefore we are not to frame any picture or idea in our minds, but are still to apprehend him only as a God incom- prehensible: and if whilst we are meditating of him any bodily shape presents itself to our thoughts, we are to remove it from him we are thinking of, and conceive of him as without body: and,

Secondly, without parts too; that is, without all mixture or composition whatsoever; whether of matter and form, as a man is compounded of soul and body; or of subject and accident, as a wise man, of wisdom and a man; or of act and power, as any thing that is, but may not be, or is not, but may be; or of genus and differentia, as when a specifical difference restrains a general nature to a certain species contained under it; or lastly, of esse and essentia, as when a thing is said to be by its essence. When God is said to be without parts, all these compositions are removed from him, or denied to be in him, yea, the last and subtlest of

[…]

Arr.

26 Of the Holy Trinity.

them all: so that God cannot be said to be by his essence, for then his essence would be one thing, and his being another: and therefore he cannot be said to be by his essence, but to be essence itself. And therefore when we think of God, we are not to apprehend him as made up of several parts, but as one most pure, simple, Divine essence, without all manner of parts whatsoever, yea, and

Thirdly, without passions too; that is, not subject to nor capable of love, hatred, joy, grief, anger, and the like, as they daily arise in us imperfect creatures; but he is always the same unmovable, unchangeable, impassible God: and there- fore in all our contemplations of the Divine essence, we are not to conceive him as one passionately rejoicing or grieving for any thing, as we do, but as a pure and perfect essence, without body, parts, and passions too; as appears from scripture, reason, and fathers.

First, from scripture, which clearly asserts the great God to be without body, saying, G’od is a j spirit, John iv. 24; and a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as a body hath, as our Saviour (who better knew the nature of a spirit than all our sceptical philosophers, that attribute matter to it, ever did, or can do) expressly tells us, Luke xxiv. 89. And to this purpose also it is said, To whom then will you liken God ? or what likeness will. ye compare unto him? Isai. xl. 18. Whereas if God had a body, we might easily answer the prophet ; he is of such or such a likeness or shape, for every body must have some shape or other. And therefore also doth Moses counsel the Israelites, that they do not make any graven image, any picture, or similitude. of God *, Deut.

[…]

k Upon this place it is that the Jews build the third article of their faith, fo>w T2.MRA POND oN 272 yYD7 Dw > PR ive. I verily believe that he (God) is not a body, neither can he be comprehended with any bodily comprehensions, neither is there any thing like unto Him. V. R. Joseph Albo in spp tornpy et Maim. in Sanh. cap. ro,

I. Of the Holy Trinity. a7

iv. 12, 15—18: which was the great sin the Romans were guilty of, and St. Paul reproves them for, Rom. i. 23.

And the same scriptures that tell us he is without body, assure us also that he is without parts, if we understand quantitative or extensive parts. And that he is without all manner of parts and compositions whatsoever, the name Jehovah, which he gives unto himself, Gen. xv.‘7, Amos ix. 6, and which he will not suffer to be given to any other being, plainly imports, signifying essence in the most pure, simple, and abstracted notion that possibly can be conceived, from an Hebrew root that signifies to de: and therefore the word denotes such an essence as is of itself pure and simple essence, which God could not be, had he any parts what- soever, for then he would have his essence from them, and so would not so much as be of himself, much less essence itself.

And therefore also we must conclude him to be without passions too, as well as parts; for if he be such a pure essence, yea, essence itself, it is impossible he should be subject to any passions. ut this, that he is without passions, appears more clearly from these words, God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent, Num. xxiii. 19. But most clearly of all in that Paul and Barnabas, to convince the people at Lystra that they were not Gods, but men, tell them, they were men of like passions, or | subject to passions, as well as they, Acts xiv. 14. And St. James useth the same argument to prove that Elias was a man too, James v.17. Now had God been subject to passions as well as men, the apostles would have been much

1 So the Syriac translates the Greek words, kai rpets pocomabeis copev ipiv avOporro by ew 2| eotes| [ocean —lw fared Et nos homines sumus_passionibus obnoxii sicut et vos; implying, that if they were gods, to whom such worship ought to be performed, they would not have been subject to such passions as men are. And so where it is said, “HAéas dvOpwros jv spoworrabns npiv, the

same translation renders it a2| 200] lecan foo fez Las| Et Elias erat homo passionibus obnoxius sicut et nos. Jac. v. 17. As if he should have said, Elias was a man as well as we, as we may see in that he was subject to passions as well as we, which if he had been God he would not have been; and yet he prayed and prevailed with God, and why may not we?

28 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

overseen in their logics, using an argument that would make as much against them as for them.

I know the Anthropomorphite, that fancied God to have a body, parts, and passions like to us, pretend much to scrip- ture to ground this their heresy upon; because in scripture God is often said to have eyes, ears, feet, a mouth, bowels, back- parts; as also to love, hate, mourn, rejoice, be angry, and the like. And it is true, such things as these are frequently attributed to God in holy scripture, but improperly, by a figure the schoolmen call Anthropopatheia. And the reason is because should God speak always of himself as he is in himself, we should not be able to understand him; and there- fore he fits his expressions to our apprehensions ; he speaks of things, not so much as they are in themselves, but as we are able to conceive of them. Therefore when he would make known himself to us, he speaks as a nurse to a child, who utters not her mind in complete sentences, but lisps it out in broken language, fitted to the shallow capacity of its tender years. Thus, I say, doth the great God speak in broken and imperfect language to us, making use of the names that we give to the several ™ parts of our bodies and passions of our minds, to signify to us the Divine properties which are in himself, or the effects of them to us. Thus he useth the word eye, to signify his omniscience, because the eye is that part of the body whereby we see any thing ; the word hand, to express his power, because it is that whereby we do any thing; and thus doth he use also the words rejoicing, grieving, loving, hating, repenting, and the like, to denote something in him which we cannot apprehend but by the dark resem- blance that these passions and affections that are in us have

™ Sed hec rursum nonsecundum torum, vel sonum vocis pervenire ad errorem Judzorum, vel etiam ex aures ejus facit, locutus homini nostris nonnullorum, qui cum illis Deus dicitur. Sic et cum nota errant : eatenus dicimus, ut quoniam esse sibi indicat que unusquisque humana fragilitas aliter audire de vel loquitur, vel agit, audisse se Deo non potest, nisi ut sibi res ipsa dicit; et cum aliquid injustum geri et vocabula nota sunt, idcireo etiam A nobis indicat, irasci se dicit: cum membris hee nostris similibus et beneficiis suis ingratos nos arguit habitu humano Deum agere sentiapcenitere se dicit: indicans quidem mus. Alienum hoc est ab ecclesiashee his affectibus, qui hominibus in tica fide. Sed hoc ipsum, quod vel usu sunt. Origen. in Gen. Hom. 2. aspirat in corde uniuscujusque sanc- [p.9. A.]

¥ Of the Holy Trinity. 29

to it. His love denotes his eternal purpose and decree to reward virtue; his hatred and anger, his eternal purpose to punish vice; and so repentance doth not signify any change in his essence or decree, but only in his “actions mutably decreed from eternity, that is, decreed to be changed upon such and such occasions and conditions. And _ therefore, though these things be spoken after the manner of men, we are to understand them as becomes the °majesty of God.

And what scripture herein asserts, reason also consenteth to. For, first, that God is without body must needs be granted, for otherwise he would be finite, and so not God: for every body hath dimensions every one of which is finite, and therefore can never make up an infinite body: or suppose we should fancy God to have a body infinite like himself, this body must be either the same with himself, and so he must be nothing but a body, (it being impossible that a body and spirit should both make up but one uncompounded substance, ) and so not the first, nor indeed any cause at all, a mere body or matter being of itself incapable of action; or else it must be really distinct from him, and if so, then either he must not be infinite, and so not God, or else there must be two infinites; which I have before convinced of absurdity. But that God hath no body appeareth also in that he hath no parts, parts necessarily accompanying every body.

And that God hath no parts, or is not Pcompounded, is clear in that we cannot look upon God but as a Being in and of himself most absolutely perfect, yea, as perfection and essence itself; incapable of receiving perfection from any thing, himself being the fountain, yea, perfection of all per- sections; and therefore in Hebrew he hath called himself Schaddai, Gen. xvii. 1, that is, one of himself perfect and all-

[…]

© This was Athanasius’s golden

rule, always to be observed, when parts or passions are attributed unto God, Tatra dvOpamomabas pev e- yovrat, Oeomperrds S€ vootyrat.

[…]

30 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

sufficient : whereas if he have any parts, it is from those parts, not from himself, that he receives perfection: whatsoever is compounded receiving its perfection from the parts it is compounded of, some perfection from one part, some from another, and all from all; and therefore wheresoever any part ~ is lacking, the whole cannot be perfect. So that to say God hath parts, is as much as to say, he is not of himself perfect, and so not God: and so also if God be compounded of any thing, the parts he is compounded of being necessarily before himself that is compounded of them, he cannot be the first of beings, much less the first of causes; the parts being always in nature at least before the whole. And again, if he have parts, they are either finite or infinite; infinite they cannot be, for then there would be more infinites than one: and therefore if he have parts, these parts can be but finite; and if so, himself that is compounded of them cannot be infinite : for many finites can never make one infinite Being, neither can any parts ever make the whole of an higher nature than themselves are, or howsoever, Pso much higher as infinite is above finite: and therefore if God hath parts, he can be but finite, and so not God; and by consequence, if he be God, he must be acknowledged to be without parts.

And that God is without passions is also as clear as that he is without body and parts; for passion, in its proper notion and notation, implies suffering, which it is impossible for God, who is a most pure act, to be subject to. Again, in every passion there is a motion or change in the subject wherein it is; and therefore also it is ealled a passion, because the subject suffers some change by it, sometimes loving, then hating, now rejoicing, then grieving, and the like; so that there is some change in the subject from what it was before. But now it is impossible there should be any such motion or change in God; for inconstaney and mutability are imper- sections, and therefore not to be admitted into the notion of a Deity. And further, if God should be moved or changed, it must be either from better to worse, from worse to better, or from equal to equal. From better to worse he cannot

P MS. not so much.

LE Of the Holy Trinity. 31

be changed, for then he would be corrupted, and want some perfection after his change which he had before, and so cease to be the chiefest good, and by consequence God; which we have before shewed he cannot, being in and of himself eternal. From worse to better if he should change, before his change he was not God, because he wanted-some perfec- tion or degree of goodness which he hath after: after his change he would not be God, because he had a beginning, and so not eternal. From equal to equal also he cannot change, for then too he would not be God absolutely perfect, wanting some perfection before his change which he had after, and some perfection after his change which he had before. And lastly, if God should be moved, or changed, and by conse- quence be in passion any way, it must be either from some- thing without him or from something within him: from any thing without him, it cannot be; for he is the First Cause, and so the first mover, by whom all other things are moved, and therefore who cannot be moved by any thing: from within he cannot be moved, for he hath not any parts (as I have shewn) whereof one can be the thing moving and the other the thing moved, being in and of himself a most pure and simple act. And therefore we cannot but eonclude from reason. also, that God is without body, parts, and passions.

And this was the doctrine of the ancient fathers. Ter- tullianad: ‘ Neither doth God stand in need of members, or of the offices of several parts, whose very tacit will hath all things present and subservient to it. For why should he desire eyes who is light itself? or why should he require feet who is every where? or why should he go in any where seeing there is nowhere that he can go out of himself? or why should he desire hands whose silent will effecteth all things? neither can he want ears who knoweth the very silent motions of the

a Neque sunt ei aut membra, aut membrorum officia necessaria, ad cujus solum etiam tacitum arbitrium, et serviunt, et adsunt omnia. Cur enim requirat oculos, qui lux est? aut cur querat pedes, qui ubique est? aut cur ingredi velit, cum non

sit quo extra se progredi possit? aut cur manus expetat, cujus ad omnia instituenda artifex est et silens vo- luntas? Nec auribus eget, qui etiam tacitas novit voluntates. Tertull, de Trinitat. [p.1237.B. ed. Pamelio, fol. Par. 1598. Est tamen Novatiani. |

32 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

heart.” And Origen: “For the Divine substance is simple or unmixed, neither compounded of any members or joints or affections: but whatsoever is performed by the power of God, that men might understand it, it is either expressed by the names of human members, or else is declared by common and known affections. And after this manner is God said to be angry, to hear, or speak.” “ For sGod is one whole Being,” saith Athanasius, “not any parts, or made up of several parts, but himself is the maker of the compositions of all things: behold how impiously they speak of God whilst they utter such things! for if he be compounded of parts, he will appear altogether unlike unto himself, and would have his perfection from things unlike to one another.” And St. Augustine saith ‘, “There are some that presume to say that God himself is altogether a body; thinking, that whatsoever is not a body cannot be a substance: such, I judge, ought utterly to be abhorred.” And elsewhere: “If our soul be not a body, how can God the creator of our soul be a body %”

And as the ancient fathers apprehended God without body and parts, so without passions too. As St. Hilary: “*But before we shew what that word of anger and perturbation of wrath is, it behoves me to admonish my hearers and readers that they do not believe that any changes of passions or motion of affections can happen to God. For there is no new

r Simplex namque est illa sub- stantia, et neque membris ullis, neque compagibus, affectibusque composita: sed quicquid divinis virtutibus geritur, 4a ut homines possent intelligere, aut humanorum membrorum appellatione profertur, aut communibus et notis annuncia- tur affectibus. Et hoc modo vel irasci, vel audire, vel loqui dicitur Deus. Orig. in Gen. Hom. 3. [p. 9. B.]

[…]

rage Athanas. Orat. con. gent.

i t Sunt.enim quidam, qui Deum ipsum omnino corpus esse presu- munt; putantes quicquid corpus non est, prorsus nullam esse sub- stantiam: istos omni modo aversan- dos censeo. Aug. [vol. II.] Epist. 112. ad Paulin. [49. |

u Porro si noster animus corpus non est, quomodo Deus creator animi corpus est? Id. [vol. VII.] de civitate Dei, 1. 8. c. 5.

x At priusquam quis iste ire sermo, et que hee indignationis per- turbatio sit, ostendamus, admoneri legentes atque audientes oportet, ne aliquas demutationes passionum, perturbationesque motuum cadere in Deum credant. Nihil enim in eter-

as? Of the Holy Trinity. 33 thing can come to that eternal and perfect nature ; neither can he (who is so, that as he is now he is always, lest some- time he should not be the same) be made to be any thing else than what he always is.” “y That so,” as St. Augustine excellently, “we may understand God, if we can, as much as we can, good without quality, great without quantity, the Creator without indigence, present without site, containing all things without habit, (or compass,) without place every where wholly, eternal without time, making changeable things without any change of himself, and suffering nothing at all.” And Athanasius in his dispute with Arius concerning God’s begetting of his Son: Arius tells him, “he believed God was not mutable, nor subject to passions, and therefore how could he beget a Son?” To whom Athanasius replies 2, “ Neither do we believe that the Divine nature is subject to passions ; but faithfully confess, that the Father, who is without passions, did, without passion of himself, who is God, beget the Son, who is God.” And Athenagoras shewing that the idols of the heathens were not gods, saith, “4 But if they should say, they are constituted only of flesh, and have blood, and seed, and are subject to the passions of anger and desire; such words also are to be accounted as trifles, and ridiculous: for there is neither anger, nor lust, nor desire, nor prolific seed in God.” And therefore we conclude, that as there is but one God, and this one God is everlasting, so is this one everlast- ing God without body, parts, and passions.

mam illam et perfectam naturam novum incidit: neque qui ita est, ut qualis est, talis et semper est, ne ali- quando non idem sit, potest effici aliquod aliud esse, quam semper est. Hil. Enar. in Ps. 2. [13.]

[…]

z Sed neque nos passionum con- ditionibus divinam credimus subja- cere naturam; sed impassibilem patrem impassibiliter ex seipso, id est, ex Deo, Deum, quod ipse est, filium generasse fideliter confitemur. Athanas. disput. contra Arium Lao- dic. hab. [vol. LI. p. 637. A., where we read not ex Deo Deum but de eo. |

[…]

D

34 Of the Holy Trinity. ART.

Of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.

Havine seen what God is not, we are now to consider what he is: when we speak of imperfections, he is utterly destitute of them, but as for perfections they are all infinite in him; he is without body, without parts,-and without passions ; but of infinite power, of infinite wisdom, and of infinite goodness. He is of infinite power, so as to do whatsoever is possible to be done: of infinite wisdom, so as to know whatsoever is possi- ble to be known: and of infinite goodness, so as to be more goodness in himself than can possibly be conceived of by us.

First, he is of infinite power, so as to be able to do what- soever is possible to be done. I say, whatsoever is possible to be done; for whatsoever is impossible to be done, is not within the verge of any power; and so God may have all power, though he cannot do it. Now there is nothing thus in itself impossible, and so nothing that God cannot do, but what in itself implies a contradiction, either directly or conse- quentially. 1st. Directly; as, for a thing to be and not to be; to be made, and not to be made: such words as these do in their plain sense and signification directly contradict, and so destroy each other. 2ndly. Consequentially ; as, that one body at the same time should be in two places, ar two bodies at the same time should be in one place: such propositions as these are, though they do not directly and in plain terms imply it, yet they lead one infallibly into a contradiction. So for God to lie, to deny himself, to die, and the like, though the words be not contradictory, yet the sense is: for to say God lies, God denies himself, God dies, are all in effect as much as to say, God is not God, For these are all imperfec- tions, and therefore was God subject to them he would not be God. And so he is omnipotent > though he cannot do them: nay, if he could do them he would be impotent, not

[…]

potens non potest, habent prorsus, ego dicam, mentirinon potest. Cre- damus ergo quod potest, non cre- dendo quod non potest. Non itaque credentes quod mentiri possit, cre- dant esse facturum quod se factu-

VIT.]_ de: civit, Dei, 1. 22; ~c. 9x: Ergo creditis Deo omnipotenti, qui posse ipsius non potest invenire non posse: tamen aliqua non potest, ut- pote falli, fallere, mentiri, ignorare, initium et finem habere, non previ-

is? Of the Holy Trinity.

omnipotent, because to do any thing that argues imperfection doth not proceed from omnipotence but impotence, or want of power to keep himself from being imperfect. Whereas God being so potent as not to be able to be imperfect or impotent 1s a greater argument that he is omnipotent, so omnipotent as that he cannot be impotent or imperfect, so omnipotent that he cannot but be omnipotent. So that he is so far from being impotent that he is the more omnipotent because he cannot do these things. And this I look upon as the reason why such things as imply contradictions are not possible to be done, because that one part of a contradiction being true the other must needs be false, and therefore should God work that which any ways implies a contradiction, he would neces- sarily work that which is false4 and untrue, and therefore that which is contrary, yea, contradictory to his own essence, who is truth itself, and so destroy himself: which if he be God it is a contradiction that he should be able to do, for if he was able to do that, he would not be God, because capable of destruction. So that for God to be able to do that which implies a contradiction doth itself imply a contradiction. And to ask whether God be able to do that which im- plies a contradiction is the same as if we should ask, whether God be able to destroy himself, to cease to be God, and to become impotent, or of a finite power, which that he should not be able to do is not from any want, but from the ¢ perfection of his power and omnipotence : so that

dere, przterita oblivisci, preesentia non attendere, futura nescire, ad ul- timum negare seipsum non potest. Ecce quanta non potest ; et tamen omnipotens est, quamvis superius comprehensa non potest. Hom. r. de symb. apost. ascript. S.Chrysost. [Opp. Lat. fol. Par. 1588. vol. V. p. 614. C.]

¢ Deus omnipotens est, et cum sit omnipotens mori non potest, falli non potest, mentiri non potest, et quod ait Apostolus mentiri seipsum non potest; quoniam multa non potest et ommipotens est, et ideo omnipotens est quia ista non potest. Aug. [vol. je de symb. ad catech. Meetia Ca Ler te 2e

e St. Ambrose herein expresseth my meaning very clearly. Nun- quidnam mentitur Deus? Sed non mentitur, quia impossibile est men- tiri Deum. Impossibile quoque istud, nunquidnam infirmitatis est? non utique; nam quomodo omnia potest, si aliquid efficere non potest? Quid ergo ei impossibile? Non quod virtuti arduum, sed quod na-

p2

36 Of the Holy Trinity. Ait. he would be less powerful if he could do them, and he is more powerful because he cannot do them; his doing ‘them would argue impotence, but his not doing them testifies his § omni- potence. If he was not omnipotent he would be able to do them, for he is therefore only unable to do them because bomnipotent. Though we need not have gone so far, neither to have rescued the truth of God’s omnipotence from the scandal of impotence, because not able to do what implies a contradiction ; for seeing every contradiction is in itself an impossibility, and every impossibility is in itself a contradic- tion to all power ; it is no derogation from the infiniteness of God’s power not to be able to do them; our meaning, when we say God is omnipotent, or of infinite power, being no more than to say, he is able to do whatsoever himself willeth’ or pleaseth, (but it is impossible he should please to do what implies a contradiction, for then he would will what is false,

turee ejus contrarium. Impossibile, inquit, est ei mentiri. Impossibile istud non infirmitatis est, sed virtutis et majestatis ; quia veritas non reci- pit mendacium, nec Dei virtus levita- tis errorem. Ideoque sit Deus veraa, omnis autem homo mendax. Veritas itaque semper in eo est: fidelis ma- net; mutare se et negare non potest. Si enim verum se negat, mentitur : mentiri autem non virtutis, sed infir- mitatis est. Nec mutare se potest, quia natura ejus non recipit infirmi- tatem. Hoc igitur impossibile ejus plenitudinis est, qua minuere se et augere non potest ; non infirmitatis, que in eo quod se auget, imbecilla est. Ex quo colligitur impossibile Dei potentissimum esse. Ambros. Epist. 37. [ep. 50. p. 993. vol. II.]

f Postremo omnipotens est ad facienda omnia, que facere voluerit. Nam ego dico quanta non possit. Non potest mori, non potest peccare, non potest mentiri, non potest falli. Tanta non potest : que si posset, non esset omnipotens. Serm. de temp. 213. ascript. August. [vol. V.]

[…]

h Neque enim et vitam Dei et preescientiam Dei sub necessitate ponimus, si dicamus, necesse est Deum semper vivere et cuncta pre- scire: sicut nec potestas ejus minui- tur, cum dicitur mori fallique non posse. Sic enim hoc non potest, ut potius, si posset, minoris esset uti- que potestatis. Recte quippe omni- potens dicitur, qui tamen mori et falli non potest. Dicitur enim om- nipotens faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult: quod si ei aceideret, nequaquam esset omni- potens. Unde propterea queedam non potest, quia omnipotens est. August. [vol. VII.] de civit. Dei, l. 5. c. 10. [1.] Vid. de Symb. ad Catech. 15 cit.

i Qui certe non ob aliud vocatur omnipotens nisi quod quicquid vult potest. August. [vol. VII.] de civ. Dei, 1. 21. c. 7. [1.] Dicitur enim omnipotens faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult. Ibid. 1. 5. c.1o.[1.] And therefore saith Ter- tulian, Deo nihil est impossibile, nisi quod non vult. Tertul. [vol. III.] de carne Christi, c. 3.

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 37

which, he being truth itself, it is a contradiction he should do,) and whatsoever is in itself such as that it may be done, and so can be the object of any power: for that which is not within the reach of any power is not necessary to be the object of God’s power, without which we could not call him an all-powerful God. For though he cannot do that which no power can do, yet he ean do all that any power can do, and that is sufficient to denominate him an all-powerful God, or one of msinite power, beyond whom no power ean go.

And as he is of infinite power, so is he of infinite wisdom too, so as to know whatsoever is possible to be known, as well as to do whatsoever is possible to be done. But when we speak of the wisdom or knowledge, we are not to measure it by our understandings and apprehensions of things, who know nothing, but only by species or certain notions ab- stracted from the things themselves ; whereas God knows all things by his own essence, for he knew all things from eternity, and therefore before there was any thing but his own essence to know any thing by: which notwithstanding, being the most perfect idea of all things possible, was suffi- cient to represent all things to himself, without any thing whatsoever distinct from himself. And again, we can have the actual knowledge only of one thing at a time, in whom the faculty, habit, and act of knowledge are three distinct things: but in God they are all the same thing ; who knows all things in himself, being all things to himself; and there- fore knows not things by succession one after another, or by discourse of reason, as we do; but he with* one simple and eternal act knows all things possible to be known, that is, all things whatsoever. And the reason is clear, for the know- ledge of God is the very essence of God, and therefore as the essence of God is but one, the knowledge of God can be but

one: so that succession is as competible to his essence as to

k Qui non singula cogitando as- picit, sed una eterna et immutabili atque ineffabili visione complectitur cuncta que novit. Aug. de Trinit. 1, rg. ¢..8. [vol. VIII. 1. 15.°13-] Omne preteritum jam non est; omne futurum nondum est: omne

igitur preeteritum et futurum deest. Apud Deum autem nihil deest : nec preteritum igitur nec futurum, sed omne presens est apud Deum. Id. de 83. quest. queest. 17. de scientia. Dei. [vol. VI. p. 4.]

38 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

his knowledge : but that there can be no such thing in his essence as succession of parts, nor by consequence in his knowledge as first and last, is plain, in that his essence (and so his knowledge) is eternal, yea, eternity itself, which ex- dudes all possibility of succession. Again, if God should know one thing after another, what he knows at one time he would not actually know at another; but when he hath the actual knowledge of one thing, he would have but only the power of knowing other things, and so would be compounded of act and power, and by consequence would not be absolutely simple, which notwithstanding that he is, we have proved be- fore. And thus it is that we say God is of infinite wisdom.

Lastly, he is of infinite goodness too, as well as of infinite power and wisdom: where by being of infinite goodness, we are to understand that he is a God infinitely desirable by us, being infinitely amiable in himself: the bottomless ocean of all goodness in himself, and an overflowing fountain of good- ness unto us. So that whatsoever good we do enjoy, we receive from him; whatsoever good we can desire, we may have in him. And herein consisteth the right notion of good- ness, even in the relation that it bears to us by being conve- nient for us, and therefore desirable by us. And in this sense is God, and God only, said to be of infinite goodness, that is, such a one of whose convenience to us and desirable- ness by us there is no bounds or limits; but let him be as much as may be desired by us, he is still more desirable in himself.

And for the proof of all this we shall first consult the serip- tures. First, that he is a God of infinite power is certain from scripture, for he is God Almighty, Gen. xxxv. 11. He as wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him and prospered ? Job ix. 4. Canst thow by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? chap. xi.‘7. As if he should say, Canst thou find out the bounds and limits of his power and greatness? canst thou tell where it will end and be perfected? is not he infinite in power? Yea, he can do every thing, Job xli.2. Yea, he hath done whatsoever he pleaseth, Psalm exy.$. And the reason is, because with God nothing shall be unpossible, Luke i. 37.

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 39

With men this is unpossible ; but with God all. things are pos- sible, Matt. xix.26. And that he is of infinite wisdom also is plain. For he is the only wise God, 1 Tim.i.17; Rom. xvi. 27; Jude 25. He knoweth all things, John xxi. 17; 1 John iii. 20. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight ; Sor all things are naked and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do, Heb. iv. 13. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Whither therefore shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there, &c. Psalm exxxix. 4, 7, 8, &c.; and why so, but because he is of infinite wisdom, or, as himself saith, his understanding is infinite, Ps. exlvii. 5.

Lastly, for his goodness, it is called great goodness, Ps. exlv. 7. He is good to all, and his mercy is over all his works, ver. 9. Yea, there is none good but God, Mark x.18; Luke xviii. 19. None essentially, none originally, none infinitely. good but God. Therefore doth David ery out, whom have I in heaven but thee? neither is there any upon earth my soul desires besides thee, Psalm Ixxiii. 25. And if he be thus the centre of all our desires, he must needs be the perfection of all goodness, or, as it is here expressed, a God of infinite goodness.

The scripture being so plentiful, I need not be prolix in producing reasons to back this truth ; especially itself being so clear, that none that hath the right understanding of it can deny subscription to it. For if I say God is God, it will necessarily follow, that he is of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness: for all these are perfections which it is impossible for us to abstract from the notion of a Deity. And not only the things themselves, but the infinitude of them is a perfec- tion-also without which God would be imperfect, and so not God. Again, wisdom, power, and goodness, being all perfec- tions, are necessary properties in God, and so the very essence of God; it being impossible for God to be God, and yet to have any thing in him which is not himself; and therefore his essence being infinite, (as it must be if it be the essence of God,) these his properties cannot but be infinite too.

And these reasons serve to prove in general, that all these perfections of power, wisdom, and goodness, are infinitely in

40 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

God. We shall now consider them distinctly. And first, as for his power, reason cannot but grant him to be the First Cause, or cause of all causes, and therefore must needs ac- knowledge him to have all power in his hand ; so that nothing ean be possible which he cannot do, and therefore he must needs be able to do all-things that are possible. Nay, we. cannot so properly say God can do any thing because it is possible, as therefore is any thing possible because God ean do it; for the possibility of any thing’s being done is grounded merely upon God’s power and ability to do it: so that the possibility of any thing’s being done, as well as the thing itself that is thus possible to be done, must depend upon God as the first cause ; otherwise, there would be some- thing in the world which he would not be the cause of. And if to this we consider what God hath or can do, we shall easily grant him to be of infinite power: for God can make any thing of ™ nothing, as when he made the world and all the creatures in it of no preexisting matter; he can make nothing of any thing, there being no greater power required to make any thing nothing, than there is to make nothing any thing: yea, he can make any thing of any thing; of stones he can raise up children to Abraham ; and all this he ean do with means or without means, or with contrary means, howsoever, whensoever, wheresoever himself pleaseth: so that one thing is not “easier or harder to him than another; a whole army is no more able to resist him than a silly fly; he can as easily make ten thousand worlds as one, and any thing in the world as easily as we can think a thought. For he doth but will any thing to be done, and in himself say fiat,

and immediately whatsoever

[…]

n Sed omnipotens manus tua, cui omnia sunt pari modo possibilia. Nec enim possibilius est creare ver- miculum, quam angelum; nec im- possibilius est extendere ccelum

his will is should be done

quam folium; nec levius formare capillum, quam corpus; nec diffici- lus fundare terram super aquas, quam aquas super terram: sed om- nia quecunque voluit fecit, in ccelo et in terra, et in mari et in omnibus abyssis, et me inter omnia sicut vo- luit, potuit et scivit. Aug. Soliloq. anime ad Deum, cap. 9. [vol. VI

App. p. 89. |

E Of the Holy Trinity. 41-

gathers up itself out of nothing, or some preexisting matter, as himself pleaseth, and becomes just what himself willed should be. And what is, if this be not, to be of infinite power ?

Neither can reason discover less of the infinitude of hig wisdom than power. For, he being the First Cause, his wisdom must needs be answerable to his power; otherwise let his power be never so great, yet of himself he could do nothing. For if he be not as wise as powerful, what he doth must either be done by chance or by the direction of another : if by chance, then he is not the First Cause, for that is always a necessary, never an accidental cause; if by the direction of another, wanting wisdom in himself, then he would not be the First Cause neither, but rather an instrument in the other’s: hand to do what he pleaseth: so that to be the First Cause infinite wisdom is required also, as well as infinite power: and not only to be the First Cause, but to be of infinite power, it is also necessary that he be of infinite wisdom, it being impos- sible for him to do more than he knows: and therefore if his wisdom and knowledge be not, his might and power cannot be infinite; especially considering that impotence, or want of power to know all things, is itself a contradiction to omnipo- tence in doing all things; this being one thing, which omni- potence must be able to do, or not be omnipotence, even to know all things.

Lastly, reason also is as confident in attributing goodness as wisdom and power, to the Deity; nay therefore because it attributes infinite wisdom and power, it cannot but attribute infinite goodness also to him: for he that is infinitely wise and powerful in himself cannot but be infinitely good; wisdom and power being two perfections much to be desired, and therefore such things as we cannot but term good; the very nature of goodness consisting in desirableness. Again, he that is the chiefest good must needs be of infinite good- ness; for otherwise, other things may be as good as he, and then he would not be the chiefest good. Now that God is the chiefest good is certain; for otherwise he would have some other above him: if he be not in all things, and so in goodness too, supreme, he must haye a superior, or howso-

ART.

42 Of the Holy Trinity.

ever an equal, and so himself would not be the first and prime cause, and so not God. But I need not expatiate upon these things, for he that is infinite in one perfection cannot but be so in all: and therefore goodness being a perfection, yea perfection itself, (for goodness and perfection are convert- ible terms,) he cannot but be of infinite goodness as well as of infinite power and wisdom.

And if we inquire of the Fathers concerning these perfec- tions in God, Justin tells us, “God hath not a measured power; therefore to him there is nothing but what is fit to produce whatsoever he pleaseth; neither doth the cutting in pieces nor burning of bodies hinder him that he cannot raise them up again. For God doth not work by the law and measure of nature, but by the power of his own will, which wanteth nothing to produce what he pleaseth.”. And Ter- tullianP; “ They do not know God aright, that do not think that he can do what they do not think.” And, “4There is nothing difficult to God: who doth not know it? And the things that are impossible with men are possible with God: who is ignorant of it? And God chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise: all this we have read.” And again, “’ Truly there is nothing difficult to God; but if we use this assertion so abruptly in our presumptions, we might feign any thing of God, as if he hath done it because he can do it. But because he can do all things we are not therefore to believe that he did that also which he never did; but we must inquire whether he did it or no.” And Origen ;

[…]

4 Nihil Deo difficile. Quis hoc

[…]

P Male Deum norunt, qui non putant illum posse, quod non pu- tant. Tertull. de resur. carnis. [vol. III. c. 38.]

[…]

r Plane nihil Deo difficile. Sed si tam abrupte in preesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus, quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia potest facere, ideoque credendum est illum fecisse, etiam quod non fecerit. Sed an fecerit, Inquirendum. Ibid.

1G Of the Holy Trinity. 43

“s According to us God ean do all things, which being able to do, he doth not therefore desist from being God, and good, and wise.” And Damascen, reckoning the various names and properties of God, he brings in this as one; “tPower, known by no measure, for it is measured only by his own will; for he can do whatsoever he will.” And St. Augustine in his Soliloquies speaks thus to the great God: “Thy almighty hand, which is always one and the same, created angels in- heaven and worms upon earth: not higher in those, not lower in these. For as no other hand could make an angel, so neither could any other make a worm: as none else could create heaven, so neither could any one else create the least leaf upon the tree: as none else could make a body, so neither can any one else make an hair black or white; but only thy almighty hand, to which all things are alike possible. For it is not more possible for him to create a worm than an angel ; nor more impossible to stretch out the heavens than a leaf.”

And concerning the wisdom of God the same Father speaks excellently : ““* But the Spirit of God is called in scripture manifold wisdom, because it hath many things in itself: but what it hath, that it is, and himself alone is all these things. For they are not many but one wisdom, in which there are great and infinite treasures of intelligible things; in which are all the invisible and unchangeable reasons of things, even

[…]

perpovpéevyy’ mavra yap éoa Oédec X Ceterum dictus est in scripturis divarac. Damasce. Orthod. fid. 1.1. sacris Spiritus sanctus sapientia ce. 8. [init.] multiplex, eo quod multa in se ha-

u Omnipotens manus tua semper beat: sed que habet, hec et est, et una et eadem, creavit in coelo ange-ea omnia unus est. Neque enim los, et in terra vermiculos: non multe sunt, sed una sapientia, in superior in illis, non inferior in istis. qua sunt immensi quidam atque in- Sicut enim nulla alia manus ange-finiti thesauri rerum intelligibilium, lum, ita nulla possit creare vermi-in quibus sunt omnes invisibiles culum: sicut nulla ccelum, ita nulla atque incommutabiles rationes re- possit creare minimum arboris forum, etiam visibilium et mutabi- lium: sicut nulla corpus, ita nulla lium, que per ipsam factee sunt. ullum capillum album potest facere Aug. de civit. Dei, [vol. VII.] 1. 11. aut nigrum: sed omnipotens manus . Io. [3.]

44 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

of such things as are visible and changeable, which were made by it.” And elsewhere: “y¥ Wherefore if the infinitude of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended; what are we poor men, that we should presume to set bounds to his knowledge, saying, that unless the same temporal things be repeated over again in the same circuits of times, all things that God hath done he either cannot foreknow that he may do them, or not know them when he hath done them. Whose wisdom, simply manifold and uniformly various, by such an incomprehensible compre- hension comprehendeth all incomprehensible things.”. And St. Hilary ; “His wisdom is innumerable, seeing he discern- eth all things by their names and number.” And as for his goodness, Athenagoras saith, “@God being perfectly good is always doing good.” Justin Martyr calls him, “?The greatest of goods, or the chiefest good.” And so St. Augustine; “¢The chiefest good, above which there is no good, is God: and by this he is the unchangeable, and therefore the truly eternal and immortal good. But all other goods are only from him, not of him.” And, to name no more in so plain a case, Ter- tullian calls him goodness itself; saying, “ Goodness said, Let us make man; Goodness formed man of the dust of the earth into such a substance of flesh endowed with so many qualities out of one matter; Goodness breathed into his nos-

trils the breath of life,” &e.

y Quare si infinitas numerorum scientiz Dei, qua comprehenditur, esse non potest infinita; qui tandem nos sumus homunculi, qui ejus scientiz limitem figere praesuma- mus, dicentes, quod nisi eisdem circuitibus temporum eadem tempo- ralia repetantur, non potest Deus cuncta que fecit vel preescire ut fa- ciat, vel scire cum fecerit? Cujus sapientia simpliciter multiplex et uniformiter multiformis, tam incom- prehensibili comprehensione omnia icomprehensibilia ¢omprehendit. Tbid. 1. 12. c. 18.

% Innumerabilis sapientia ejus est, cum universa et nominibus discernat et numero. Hilar. Enar. in Ps. 146.

[6.]

So that as scripture and reason

[…]

¢ Summum bonum quo superius non est, Deus est: ac per hoc in- commutabile bonum est; et ideo vere eternum, et vere immortale. Czetera omnia bona non nisi ab illo sunt, sed non de illo. Aug. de na- tura boni, [vol. VIII.] c. x. [init.]

a Bonitas dixit, Faciamus homi- nem, bonitas finxit hominem de limo, in tantam substantiam carnis ex una materia tot qualitatibus in- structam, Bonitas inflavit animam, &c. Tert. advers. Mare. 1. 2. [c. 4.]

fF. Of the Holy Trinity. 45

is clear, so are the Fathers confident in avouching one living and true God to be of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness.

The Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.

Wuar God is in himself he hath manifested himself to be to us, and that both in his word and by his works. His word we shall have occasion to treat of hereafter ; his works here, viz. those two great works, (if they may be called two,) his creation and preservation of the world; in both which he hath discovered the truth of that part of the article which we have even now taken off our pen from. For if his power had not been infinite, he would not have been strong enough ; if his wisdom had not been infinite, he would not have been wise enough ; and if his goodness had not been infinite, he would not have been good enough to have made and _ pre- served such a glorious fabric as the world is we live in. Yea, the glory of all these perfections was wonderfully displayed in his creation of the world. His infinite power appeared not only in making all things of nothing, but also in that he made plants, herbs, and trees before he made the sun, moon, and stars, without which naturally they cannot be produced. His infinite wisdom appeared in that he first made the simple elements, then the mixed bodies; and in that those things were first created which had only a being without life, as all inanimate creatures; then such as had a being and life, but without sense, as plants; then such as had a being, life, and sense, but without reason, as the brute beasts ; and then, last of all, such as had a being, life, sense, and reason, as man. And his infinite goodness also discovered itself in that he made the habitations before he made the inhabitants, food before them that were to eat it, and all things that man was to make use of before man that was to make use of them. So well may we say, He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom ; and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion, Jer. x.12. And thus hath he manifested himself to be a God of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, by being the maker and preserver of all things ;

Arr.

46 Of the Holy Trinity.

that is, in that there is nothing in the world besides himself that was not made and is not preserved by himself. The angels above us, the devils below us, the world about us, the souls within us, are all the workmanship of his hands.

First, he is the maker of all things, or he made all things, and that not of any thing, but of nothing; so that before he made it there was nothing at all made. The sun, moon, and stars, with the rest of their fellow creatures, all lay in the barren womb of nothing, not appearing to any, having no being in themselves. This barren womb of nothing did the almighty word of God deliver of the world and all things therein contained; haying no preexistent nor coexistent matter to make them of; nor any thing but his own infinite power to make them by. It was the opinion of some ancient philosophers, that out of nothing ¢ nothing ean be produced : but it is the faith of all sound Christians, ‘that out of nothing all things were created. So that there is nothing but what was made of nothing besides God, who was never made at all, but was himself the maker of all things besides himself.

And this must needs be the purport of the words visible and invisible in the article ; which so immediately contradict- ing one another, cannot but comprehend all things possible

[…]

f Nemo querat, ex quibus ista materlis tam magna, tam mirifica opera Deus fecerit. Omnia enim fecit ex nihilo. Lact. de orig. err. {c. ix. vol. I. p.-t4g.]_ Igitur in quantum constitit materiam nullam fuisse, ex hoc etiam quod nec talem competat fuisse qualis inducitur, in tantum probatur omnia a Deo ex nihilo facta. Tertull. adv. Hermog. [e. 45.] Qui sua omnipotenti vir- tute simul ab initio temporis utram- que de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angeli- cam, viz. et mundanam. Concil. Later. iv. Confes. fid. [vol. VII. p. 15.] To yap réyew e& troxepevns

vAns Ta dvra yeyernoOat Kal uty 6f10- Aoyety Ste €E odK bvT@Y a’Ta Taph- yayev 6 TGY aravrev Snuroupyds THs exyxatns mapadpoovyns dy €in onpetov. Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 2. [vol. I. p- 7-30.] Atsi omnipotentem Deum fabricatorem mundi esse concedunt fateantur necesse est ex nihilo eam fecisse que fecit. Aug. de fide et symb. c. 2. [vol. VI. p. 152.] Qua- propter rectissime credimus omnia Deum fecisse de nihilo: quia etsi de aliqua materia factus est mundus eadem ipsa materia de nihilo facta est. Ibid. Omnipotentem Deum credimus qui omnia faciens factus non est, et ideo omnipotens est quia de nihilo fecit queecunque fecit. Id. de symb. ad catech. 1. 2. ©. 3. [vol. VI. p. 558.] Non enim eum aliqua materies adjuvit ex quo demonstraret artis sue potentiam, sed ex nihilo, ut dixi, cuncta creavit. Ibid.

AT

within themselves. The things that are seen and the things that are not seen being all understood by them, and there- fore the matter also that all things were made of, as well as the things themselves that were made of that matter, must needs be comprehended under them. So that to say God made all things of something is a contradiction: for he that saith there is something which God never made, but made all things of, and yet he made all things, doth plainly contradict himself ; that something being also necessarily comprehended under all things.

Neither was he the maker only, but the preserver also of all things that were ever made. For when he had produced all things out of nothing, he did not leave them to themselves, as an artificer, who when he hath done his work hath done with his work ; no, should God thus leave all things he hath made of nothing to themselves, they would all of themselves again fall down to nothing. And therefore as he at first bestowed their beings upon them, he is still pleased to con- tinue their beings to them ; preserving every species by pro- ereation of individuals, and every individual by nutrition proper to itself. And so in the constant vicissitude and orderly succession of one thing after another, there was nothing made by him at the first beginning of time but what is preserved by him from time to time. And so he is not only the maker, but also the preserver of all things visible and invisible.

And if for the proof of this we consult the scriptures, the first words of them expressly tell us, that In the beginning God created heaven and earth, Gen. i. 1; that is, m the first beginning of time, before which there was nothing but eter- nity; and in the first beginning of all things, before which there was nothing that had a beginning, did God of nothing make all things. First I say, he made all things of nothing ; for though the word & darah may not always signify the pro-

I. Of the Holy Trinity.

& That x52 doth not always signify the production of any thing out of nothing, is plain, in that it is often used in the same sense with nw» and xz», which denote only in general to make or form any thing of some

preexistent matter; aS Rv VN AWY pr xvi ppdw mov yon I form the light and create the darkness, I make peace and create evil; Isa. xlv. 7. and wnwy-AR NS? VNR TI have created him, I have formed, yea I

48 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr. duction of any thing out of nothing; and so we cannot raise any convincing argument from the word itself, so as to say because God barah, therefore he made all things of nothing ; yet it cannot possibly be taken in any other sense here than to signify the producing of something, yea, of all things, out of nothing. For suppose the word in itself should import no ‘more than that he made all things: yet here it necessarily implies that he made them of nothing; because it is here expressed that it was in the beginning that he made all things, and therefore before which there was nothing that he could make any thing of. For if there had been any thing he could make any thing of, before he is here said to create heaven and earth, he could not have been said to have created them in the beginning, there being something begun, and so a begin- ning before that. Secondly, as from these words it may rationally be deduced that he made all things of nothing, so also that of nothing he made all things; I mean, there is nothing in the world but what is comprehended under one of these two words heaven and earth. And it is usual in the Hebrew tongue, “having no one word to express it by, as

have made him; xlii.47: so that 812, 12? and Nw creating, forming, and making, in the language of the scripture, are the same thing. And therefore also whereas it is said DIRT nx DTdx mI 12) And God formed man of the dust of the earth, Gen. ii. 7, the Chaldee renders it x21 and God created man: and God himself saith elsewhere D7”) *neia my and I created man upon tt, Isa. xlv.12. so that creating of man and forming of man is the same thing: and therefore also saith the Targum elsewhere 812087 01x x21 79 Man that is created of the dirt; Job xxx. 19: and 7a °n anK nip I was created of the dust; Ps. Ixxxix. 48. So that a thing may be 8112 created of some preexistent matter as well as nothing, and there- fore 811 cannot always denote the production of any thing out of nothing.

h There are but two Hebrew words that offer at it, and they are 577 and

21n; both which, I must confess, mostly, if not always, are translated world: but properly they denote not the universal, but only the habitable world, even so much of the universe as is inhabited. As for the first, Viz. 017, it is made use of but once in all the Bible; and that is Isai. xxxvill. 11. I shall not behold man more S771 91D OY with the inhabit-

ants of the world, as we render it;

but the ‘‘argum xy 1s »an the in- habitants of the earth; the Arab. las pytKawl us? Gloaw3} any of them that dwell in it, viz. in the earth before spoken of. Whence we see that the most ancient interpreters took51m and yrx to be synonymous terms. And truly from this place it cannot (nor by consequence from any) be proved, that this word sig- nifies any more than the habitable world, the inhabitants of it being here spoken of. But the more usual word that is rendered world is 5an;

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 49

other languages have, to join these two words, heaven and earth, together, and under them to comprehend the whole circumference of all created beings; which we call the world or universe. And there is no place of scripture where they come together, but they are to be taken in that comprehen- sive sense. And in this God himself seems to be his own interpreter, who in one place saith, in six days he made heaven and earth, Exod. xxxi.17; in another place, that 7 six days he made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them as, Exod. xx.11. And St. Paul most excellently, not only explains the phrase, but confirms the truth, saying, that dy him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and Sor him, Col. i.16. Which place being itself so clear, plain, and full a proof of it, I need not produce any more to prove that God is the maker of all things, visible and invisible. Neither do the scriptures testify his creation only, but his preservation also of all things in the world. For we did not only at the first receive our beings from him, but even now, in him we live, move, and have our being. ‘Acts xvii. 28. And

made use of very frequently, but never to signify any more than the habitable world neither as 547m; and therefore is it still translated by the Septuagint, oikovzevn. The Chald. Ps. ix. 9. renders it NyINT NOY the people of the earth; the Arabic 3y—K_—ane)) habitata, habitabilis ; the habitable part of the world. So also Psal. xviii. 16. and xcviii. 7. and elsewhere. The Syr. always retains the Hebrew word \sa5(Z The Rabbins contracted the signification of it still narrower than the habitable world, making it to signify no more than the land of Israel; whence R. Salomon speaking of ban saith, xn NVYOI MIND NAW INIW? PIX mann Illa est terra Israelis, que condita est preceptis multis, in Isa. xxiv. 4: and these words coming short, there is no word in Hebrew so comprehensive as to signify the whole world. Neither indeed had

the Grecians any such word until Pythagoras’s time; who seeing the wonderful order of all things, called the compages of all creatures Kéc- pos. So Plutarch, Mvéaydpas rpé- Tos @vopage THY TOY bhov TEpLoxny, Kéo poy, eK THS Ev a’T@ Td~ews. De placit. philos. 1. 2. c. 1. [wol. IV. p- 379-| and from hence did the Latins call it mundus.

[…]

dmoréecOu. [p. 153: |

50 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

not only we, but all things in the world are as well preserved by him, as at the first they received their beings from him: what David saith of some we may apply to all creatures; These wait all upon thee ; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thow givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thow takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thow sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: thou renewest the face of the earth, Psalm civ. 27—380. Psalm exlv.15. It is he who covereth the heavens with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains. He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry, Psalm exlvii. 8,9. It is he who giveth us richly all things to enjoy, 1 Tim. vi.17. It is he who stretch- eth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds ; and the cloud is not rent under them, Job xxvi. 7, 8, &c. It is he that maketh his sun to rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and upon the unjust, Matt. v. 45. Without whom not so much as a sparrow shall fall on the ground. By whom the hairs of our heads are numbered, Matt. x. 29, 30. In a word, it is he that upholdeth all things by the word of his power’, Heb.i.3: without whom therefore nothing in the world could stand; but all things would immediately fall down into their first nothing. So closely do the scriptures hold forth God as the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible.

And though some of the ancient naturalists have been thought to assert the eternity of the world, as ! Aristotle;

k Nomen filii Dei magnum et im-

mensum est, et totus ab eo susten- tatur orbis. Herme discip. Paul. i 3- [§. 14. p. 75.]

That Aristotle asserted the eter- nity of the world is plain, in that he states the question in the tenth chap- ter of his first book de Clo: Aéyo- pev peta tavra mérepov ayévnros }} yemnros, kat GpOapros i) pOaprds (6 ovpavos) [lib. 1. c. 10.] And then having handled the question in that, he concludes in the beginning of the

[…]

F. Of the Holy Trinity. 51

and others to deny an universal providence ; either holding all things to fall out by chance, as the Epicureans, or else from a fatal necessity, without the concurrent providence of a Deity, as the Stoicks; yet we cannot thence conclude it beyond the reach of reason to find the contrary to be true. Nay, cer- tainly if we pass our judgment upon creation and providence from the certain conclusions of unbiassed reason, without hay- ing respect to the scriptures at all, it can be no other than that God is as really the maker and preserver of all things, as he is God. For, first, unless he made all things, how can he be termed the First Cause, or by consequence God? unless he be the cause of all causes, how can he be termed the First Cause? and unless he be the cause of all things, how ean he be the cause of all causes?) And therefore if there be any thing he is not the cause of, or which he did not make, how is he the cause of all things? No certainly, to say he made not all things is as much as to say he is not the First Cause, as really as to say he is not the First Cause is as much as to say he is not God. Again, unless God made all things there is something in the world that was either made by itself, by some other person besides God, or else it was never made at all. To say any thing was made by itself is a contradiction ; for then it would be and not be at the same time: it would not be, because not made; it would be, because it could make itself; it being impossible for any thing to act which doth

dicens, semper mundum fuisse: ita- que et humanum genus, et cetera, quze in eo sunt, initium non habere, sed fuisse semper, et semper fore. Sed cum videamus singula queque animalia, quee ante non fuerant, in- cipere esse, et esse desinere: ne- cesse est totum genus aliquando esse ccepisse, et aliquando desitu- Tum esse, quia cceperit. Lactant. de orig. error. c. [11. vol. I. p. 161.] And besides Aristotle, Heraclitus Ephesius also held the eternity of the world, kéopov rov avrov amdy- rev ovte tis Oeav ovre avOparav €roinaey, GANG jv dei kai €or, apud Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. [5. p. 711.] And Pliny, Mundum, et hoe quod nomine alio ccelum appellare libuit

[…]

Tor 16 Gp liebe

[…]

Terrarum et coeli, semperque eterna fuere :

Cur supera bellum Thebanum, et fu- nera Trojez,

Non alias alii quoque res cecinere poetz ?

Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? nec usquam

[…]

Verum, ut opinor, summa, recensque

Natura est mundi.

EQ

habet novitatem

52 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

not exist. If it was made by any other person besides God, either there must be two infinites, (which I have proved im- possible,) or else a finite power must be able to make any thing of nothing, which is impossible also; for upon that very account, because it can make any thing of nothing, it is infi- nite: for that which can make any thing of nothing, can do any thing at all, there being nothing harder to be done than that ; because there cannot be a greater distance betwixt any two things than there is betwixt any thing and nothing, the one being immediately contradictory to the other. And he that can do the hardest thing that is possible to be done cannot have any bounds or limits of his power, and therefore must needs be infinite.

Thus there can be nothing in the world made of itself, or by any other person besides God: it remains therefore, that it was either never made at all, or else made by God. That there should be any thing in the world besides God never made at all, is impossible; for then God would not be the cause of all things besides himself, and so not God. Again, if there be any thing in the world besides God that was never made, it must needs be eternal as God himself: for if it was never made, it had no beginning; if it had no beginning, it must needs be eternal. Now it is impossible any thing should be eternal as God, and not be God; for absolute eternity is a perfection, and therefore cannot but be acknowledged an essential property in God, and so the very essence of God; which therefore no person can have but he that hath the essence of God, which to say any but God can have is a con- tradiction. This also would quite destroy that old axiom, ™that every thing that is or hath any being is either the Creator or a creature: so that unless it be the Creator, it is a creature; and if it be not a creature, it is a Creator: which likewise was grounded upon a certain truth, that there must be some First Cause upon which all other causes, and

[…]

ialog. 1. [14. vol. II. p. 551.]

i Of the Holy Trinity. 53

so things, necessarily depend ; which if there be any thing neither the Creator nor the creature, neither the First Cause itself nor dependent upon the First Cause, is a manifest un- truth : which if granted would make all the logic and reason of all the philosophers in the world to be but dreams and fancies. But that it is not a falsity, but a real truth, such a truth as that the denying of it will force us into a contradic- tion, I have proved before.

Having proved the great God to be the maker of all things, I need not heap up many arguments to prove he is the pre- server also of all that he hath made. For the principal reasons which may be brought for the one may be produced for the other too. The great reason why God must be acknowledged the maker of all things, is, because he cannot but be acknow- ledged the First Cause. And if he be the First Cause, it as necessarily follows that he preserves all things now, as that he made them all at the first. For though he did make all things, and so was the First Cause of all things ; yet he can- not be said to be the cause of all things now, unless he pre- serves them as well as made them. For not only at the beginning of the world, but even now, there are and will be several causes in the world, till the end of it, all which must necessarily depend upon one another, and therefore at the length come to some First Cause, that hath all other causes depending upon it; itself depending upon nothing. . Now un- less God hath now a hand in the preserving, as well as he had in the making of things, no cause could depend upon him, and so now he would not be the First Cause, and therefore not God.

And if to this we consider how there is as great power requisite for the preserving as for the making of the world, we shall easily find, that as none but God could make it, so there is none but God can preserve it. Now that there is as great power requisite for the one as for the other, is plain. For preservation is commonly defined by some, and acknow- ledged by all, to be but a continued creation : and they only dif- fer in this, that creation implies the creature to be made now ; preservation implies it to be made heretofore. So that creation includes novelty, which preservation excludes ; and excludes

54 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

precedent existency, which preservation includes : but in all things else, and therefore in this also, they agree, that they both proceed from the infiniteness of God’s power. Again, either an infinite power is required to preservation as well as creation, or else a finite power can do it : but it is impossible for any finite power to preserve all things; for itself being finite is a creature too, and therefore needs preservation itself as much as the things it is supposed to preserve, and so will all finite powers whatsoever ; and therefore we must at length come to an infinite power that preserves all things in the world: and is itself preserved by nothing but itself, and that is God.

But could not God make an independent creature, that needed not the continual concourse of his power to uphold and support it in its being? And may not the world be such a thing? I answer, it is a contradiction, and therefore no derogation from, but the perfection of God’s power, that he cannot do it. An independent creature is as much as to say an uncreated creature ; for if it be created, it must necessa- rily depend upon him that created it: yea, to say any thing is an independent creature, is as much as to say, it is both the Creator and the creature; for independency is an essential property of God, and therefore he that is independent must needs be God: and hence it is, that we must conclude that all creatures, and so every thing besides God, in that they are creatures and not God, must necessarily and continually de- pend upon God their Creator. So that as if he had not made them they could never have been, so if he doth not preserve them they cannot subsist, or continue in their being. So that it is far more impossible for a creature to “subsist without

n Creatoris omnipotentia est causa dente deficit lumen lune. Et sic,

subsistendi omni creature : que vir- tus si ab iis, que condidit, regendis aliquando cessaret, simul omnium rerum species et natura consideret. [Prosp. aes ex] August. [sent. 277. vol. X. App. p. 241.] Qui si non esset, nulla profecto res esset, que aliquod nomen substantiamque portaret. Arnob. contra gentes, 1. [2. p. 43-] Sic enim se Deus habet ad res, sicut sol ad lunam, quo rece-

[…]

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 55

God, than for light to subsist without the sun. His jfiat made them, and his fiat can unmake them again. Yea, he put his everlasting arms under them, and immediately raised them out of nothing, and holds them up in their being: if he should take his everlasting arms from under them, they would lose their beings again, and presently drop down to nothing. As take a stone from off the ground, so long as you hold it, it will keep up, but let go your hold, and of itself it will fall down to the ground again from which you took it: so here, God takes us out of nothing: so long as he preserves and holds us up, we subsist ; but if he let go his hold, alas! in the twink- ling of an eye, we are where we were at first, in nothing. All which things being seriously considered, cannot but extort the confession from any person in the world, that God is the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible.

And this hath been the Christian faith in all ages. The Fathers all agree in it, usually joining them both (viz. creation and providence) together ; and therefore I shall not separate them in my citations of them. First Justin Martyr: “° But this is the work of Providence (speaking of heaven and earth) which made this universe of various parts, differing both in their nature and use.” The next is Athenagoras: “P It be- hoves them that believe God to be the Creator of the universe, to attribute the custody and care of all things to his wisdom and justice, if they will but stick to their own principles: and seeing they hold this, there is nothing in earth or heaven that they should think to be destitute of this his care and pro- vidence ; but that the care of the Creator is over all things

[…]

Of the Holy Trinity. Art. whatsoever, visible and invisible, great and little: for all things that are want the care of their Creator, and every thing peculiarly according to its own nature, and the end it was created for.” And Tertullian: “4 But that which we worship is one God, who in the glory of his majesty, out of nothing brought all that bulk, with every instrument of the elements, bodies, spirits, by his word commanding it, by his wisdom disposing it, by his power perfecting it.” And again: “rhe rule of truth requires that we first believe in God the Father and Lord Almighty, that is, the most perfect Creator of all things; who hanged the heavens on high, and founded the earth below, diffused the seas, and replenished and adorned all these with their proper and condign instruments and fur- niture.” Next to him is Clemens Alexandrinus: ‘“ s The doc- trine that is according to Christ both acknowledgeth the Cre- ator, and that providence reacheth even to particular things.” And Arnobius: “tIs there any religion more true, profitable, powerful, and just, than to know God to be the chief, and to know to supplicate this chief God, who alone is the head of all good things, and the fountain, the founder and maker of perpetual things, by whom all celestial and terrestrial things are animated and irrigated by vital motion ; and who if he was not, truly there could not be any thing that could bear any name or substance?” And so Athanasius: ‘“ ” There is

r Regula exigit veritatis, ut primo omnium credamus in Deum patrem et dominum omnipotentem, id est, rerum omnium perfectissimum con- ditorem, qui ccelum alta sublimitate suspenderit, terram dejecta mole so- lidaverit, maria soluto liquore dif- fuderit, et heec omnia propriis et condignis instrumentis et ornata et plena digesserit. ‘Tertull. [Nova- tian.| de Trinit. [init.]

8 “H axddovbos Xpiord didacka-

[…]

t An ulla est religio verior, officio- sior, potentior, justior, quam Deum principem nosse, scire Deo principi supplicare, qui bonorum omnium so- lus caput et fons est, perpetuarum pariter fundator et conditor rerum, a quo omnia terrestria curictaque cee- lestia animantur, motuque irrigan- tur vitali; et qui si non esset, nulla profecto res esset, que aliquod no- men substantiamque portaret? Ar- nob. contra gent. |. [2. init.]

[…]

: Of the Holy Trinity. 57

nothing made that was not made, and doth not subsist in and by him.” And again: “*But as he is good, by his own Word, which is God too, he governeth and constituteth all things, that the creature being illustrated by the guidance, eomiond; and disposition of his Word and Reason, might stand firm ; forasmuch as it is admitted into the communion and fellow- ship with him, who truly is, and from him it received power to exist, that it might not suffer those things by the flowing of its essence which otherwise it would have suffered ; I mean, it would not be, unless that Word preserved it, which is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature ; because by him and in him doth every thing consist, invisible and visible.” And presently after: “yFor in a moment, at the beck of the Word of God, are all things alike dispensed, and every thing hath what is peculiar to it, and the same order is perfected in all things; for at the beck and by the power of the Divine and paternal Word, the governor and moderator of all things, heaven is turned about, the stars moye, the sun displays his light, the moon runs her course, -and the air is enlightened by it.” And the same Father expounding the Christian faith, begins it thus: “2 We be- lieve in one unbegotten God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, having his being of himself.” The next is Theodoret: ‘4 Behold the providence of God bending itself, and prying into every particle of the creation,

Nevpare yap

[…]

58 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

shining in them, sounding and even speaking in them.” The next is Chrysostom; who upon those words of our Saviour, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, saith, “> What man- ner of work is this? He looketh over and disposeth all things that are made. When thou seest therefore the sun rising, the moon running, the lakes, and fountains, and rivers, and showers, and the course of nature in seeds and in bodies, both ours and beasts’, and all things of which this universe con- sisteth ; learn and consider the continual working of the Father.” For as Cyril of Alexandria saith: “° Without God and the supreme will, the heavens could not water the earth ; neither could the earth bring forth its fruit in season.” “d Yea, it is from him,” as Gicumenius saith, “that we re- ceive both our being, our ability to act, and our preservation from destruction :” so well may the one living and true God be termed the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible.

And in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Tuar there is but one living and true God, was the first part of this article; that in this unity of Godhead there be three Persons is the last: there the Unity of the Godhead, here the Trinity in the Godhead is expressly delivered. A mystery, which though it be not too great for a divine faith to believe, yet it is too high for our human understandings to conceive. And therefore having settled my faith firmly upon it, I am ¢fearful to discourse much about it; being conscious

[…]

e De hac re summa et excellen- tissima modestia et timore agendum

est, et attentissimis ac devotis auri-

hs Of the Holy Trinity. 59

to myself, how easy, and withal how dangerous a thing it is, to mistake and err in so great and f unspeakable a mystery as this is. If I think of it, how hard is it to contemplate upon one numerically Divine nature in more than one and the same person ; or upon three Divine persons in no more than one and the same Divine nature! If I speak of it, how difficult is it to find out fit words for the explication of it! IfI say, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be three, and every one distinctly God, it is true; but if I say, they be three, and every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, the Divine persons are distinct in the Divine nature; but I cannot say, the Divine nature is divided in those Divine persons. I may say, God the Father is not the Son, God the Son is not the Father, and God the Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son; yet I cannot say, the Father is not the same God with the Son, or the Son is not the same God with the Father, or the Holy Ghost is not the same God with the Father and the Son. I may say, in the sacred Trinity, or among the Divine persons, there is one before another, and one greater than another ; yet I cannot say, in the sacred Deity, or in the Divine nature, there is one greater than another, or one & before another. I can say, God the Father is eternal, God the Son is eternal, God the Holy Ghost is eternal; yet I

bus audiendum, “ ubi queritur uni- tas Trinitatis, Patris, Filii et Spiri- tus Sancti, quia nec periculosius ali- cubi erratur, nec laboriosius quzeri- tur, nec fructuosius invenitur.” Aug. de Trinit. 1. 1. [vol. VIII. p. 752.]

[…]

[vol. II. p. 728.]

60 Of the Holy Trinity. Art.

cannot say there are three eternals. I may say, the Father is one God, the Son is one God, the Holy Ghost is one God; yet I cannot say, the Father is one God, the Son is another God, and the Holy Ghost is a third God. Again, I may say, the Father begot the Son, the Son was begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son; and so he that was God begot him that was God, and a third person, who was God too, proceeded from two, each of which was God; yet I cannot say, one God begot another God, or from two Gods issued forth a third God. Or thus, I may say, the Father begat another, who was God ; yet I cannot say, he begat another God: and from the Father and the Son proceeded another, who is God; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son proceed another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same, yet their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet their nature is the same. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright, or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable to it, without going one way or other awry from it.

Hence it is that I shall not use many words about it, lest some or other slip from me unbecoming of it. In brief there- fore, here it is said, that in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons; that is, though there: be but one living and true God, yet there are three Persons, who are that one living and true God. Though the true God be but one in substance, yet he is three in subsistence; and so three in subsistence as still to be but one in substance. And these three Persons, every one of which is God, and yet all three but one God, are really related to one another: as they are termed in the scripture, one is a Father, the other a Son, the other an Holy Ghost. The first is Father to the second; the second is Son to the first; the third is neither Father nor Son, but the issue or Spirit of both. The first was a Father from eternity, as well as God; the second was God from eter- nity, as well as a Son; the third was both Holy Ghost and

h Pater genuit alium, viz. filium, non autem alium Deum, sed aliam personam. August.

I. Of the Holy Trinity. 61

God from eternity, as well as either of them. The Father is the first person in the Deity; not begotten, nor proceeding, but begetting: the Son the second person; not begetting nor proceeding, but begotten: the Holy Ghost the third; not begotten, nor begetting, but proceeding. The first is called the Father, because he begot the second; the second is called the Son, because he is begotten of the Father ; the third is called the Holy Ghost, because breathed both from the Father and the Son.

And though these be really thus amongst themselves dis- tinct from one another, yet are they not distinct in the Divine nature : they be not distinct in essence, though they be dis- tinct in the manner of their subsisting in it. The Father subsists as a Father; the Son as a Son; the Holy Ghost as a Spirit; and so have distinct subsistences, yet have all the same numerical substance‘. I say numerical or individual substance ; for otherwise they might have all the same Divine nature, and yet not be the same God. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were three distinct persons, that had all the same human nature, yet they could not all be called one man; because, though they had but one human nature, yet they had it specifically as distinguished into several individuals ; not numerically so as to be the same individual man: and therefore, though they had but one specifical, they had several numerical natures; by which means Abraham was one man, Isaac another, Jacob a third. And upon the very same account is it, that among the angels, Gabriel, Michael, Ra- phael, though they have the same angelical nature, yet they are not the same angel. But here the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have not only the same Divine nature in specie, but in numero; and so have not only one and the same nature, but are also one and the same God. The Father is the selfsame individual God with the Son; the Son is the selfsame individual God with the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the selfsame individual God with them both. I say, individual God; for the Divine nature is not * divided into

i So ed.1716. The MS. has subimoordccow 1) THS pas ovoias Ocd- sistence. ts. Athan. in Quest. ad Antioch.

[…]

62 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

several Gods, as the human is into several men ; but only dis- tinguished into several persons; every one of which hath the same undivided Divine nature, and so is the same individual God. And thus it is, that in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which great mystery, though we be not able to conceive of it, yet the serip- tures give a sufficient testimonial to it.

Now though this mystery hath received great light by the rising of the Sun of righteousness upon the world, yet it did not lie altogether undiscovered before ; there being sufficient testimonies in the Law as well as in the Gospel of it. I shall make use of both, that by the mouth of two infallible wit- nesses, (the Law and Gospel,) this great truth may be esta- blished. First, of the Old Testament, which will furnish us with several testimonies of it, though not with so many as commonly are forced from it. God being so frequently styled Elohim, and saying in the first of Genesis, * Let us make man, may denote a plurality, but cannot convince any gainsayer of a trinity of persons in the sacred Deity. And the angels erying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, Isai. vi. 3, may be a stronger argument for the supereminent sanctity, than for the sacred Trinity in the Divine nature.

But there are two or three places which seem to be very convincing ; as, The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word by my tongue, 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. Where we have Jehovah, the Spirit of Jehovah, and the Word of Jehovah, which is his

k Tertullian makes use of this tur, ut Judei interpretantur, quia place to prove the Trinity. Si te nec ipsi Filium agnoscunt? An quia adhuc numerus scandalizet Trini-ipse erat Pater, Filius, Spiritus, ideo

tatis, quasi non connexe in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo unus et singularis pluraliter loquitur? Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram ; cum debu- erat dicere, Faciam hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem meam ; utpote unicus et singularis? Sed et in sequentibus, Ecce Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis. Fallit aut Judit ; ut cum unus, et solus, et singularis esset, numerose loquere- tur: aut nunquid angelis loqueha-

[…]

}. Of the Holy Trinity. 63

Son, as I shall shew afterwards, plainly and distinctly set down together. So also, by the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, Psalm xxxill. 6. Where we have again Jehovah himself, his word, and his breath or Spirit distinctly expressed. And again, Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him, and he shall bring Forth judgment to the Gentiles, Isai. xlii. 1. Where Jehovah the Lord is speaking of Christ his servant, there are two per- sons; and saith, he will put his Spirit upon him, there is the third.

Thus we might discover this truth even in the Old Testa- ment, but in the New we can scarce look over it. Where we may read how, when Jesus was baptized, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. And lo a voice from heaven, say- ing, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iil. 16. Had we, who know nothing but by our senses, been present at this time with Jesus at Jordan, our very senses would have conveyed this truth to our understandings, whe- ther we would or no. Here we should have heard a voice from heaven ; whose was it but God the Father’s? Here we should have seen Jesus coming out of Jordan ; who was that but God the Son? And here we should have seen something else too, in the form of a dove; and who was that but God the Spirit ? Thus was God the Father heard speaking ; God the Son seen ascending ; and God the Holy Ghost descending upon him. The first was heard in the sound of a! voice; the second was seen in the form of a man; the third was beheld in the shape of a dove. O mystery of mysteries! that so high a mystery should be brought within the reach of sense !

1 Et ecce columba descendit su- per Dominum baptizatum ; et appa- ruit ibi sancta illa et vera Trinitas,

uz nobis unus Deus est. Adscen- dit enim Dominus ab aqua, sicut in Evangelio legimus, et ecce aperti sunt cceli, et vidi Spiritum descen- dentem sicut columbam, et mansit super eum: et statim vox consecuta est, Tu es Filius meus dilectus, in

quo mihi bene complacui. Appa- ruit manifestissime ‘Trinitas, Pater in voce, Filius in homine, Spiritus Sanctus in columba. Aug. in Joh. tract. 6. [5. vol. III. pars ii-] Pater auditur in voce; Filius manifestatur in homine; Spiritus Sanctus digno- scitur in columba. Id. And another elegantly, in his poetical strain : Voce pater, natus corpore, flamen ave.

64 Of the Holy Trinity. ’ Arr,

Thus we read how Christ, when upon earth, said, when he went to his Father, he would pray him, and then he would send the Spirit, John xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 96; xvi. 7.13, 14-152 where we may observe the Son praying the Father, the Father hearing the Son, and both of them sending the Holy Ghost. Thus saith the angel to Mary; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore also that Holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be

called the Son of God, Luke i. 35: where God the Father sends an angel unto Mary; God the Son is promised to be born of her; and therefore God the Holy Ghost to over- shadow her. Thus it is said, God (the Father) hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, Gal. iv.6. And there- fore the apostle wishing all happiness to the Corinthians, con- dudes his Epistle with a holy prayer to all the Persons in the sacred Trinity for them, saying, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all, 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

There is still behind, besides some other that it might be proved from, one eminent place to confirm this truth: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii.19. As the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost appeared together when John baptized Christ ; so must all Christians, that thenceforth shall be bap- tized, be baptized in the name of all three. Where we have observable the Trinity in the Deity, the Deity of the Trinity, and the order of the persons in that Divine Trinity. 1st. The Trinity in the Deity; for here are plainly three; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 2ndly. The Deity of the Trinity, that every person is God; for here Divine worship is to be per- formed to them all; and all that profess the true religion must be baptized in the name of every one as well as of any one of them: and 8rdly, here is the order betwixt the sacred persons in the Deity ; first, the Father; secondly, the Son ; thirdly, the Holy Ghost.

It is clear therefore, that there are no more and no fewer persons in the sacred Deity than three; but how doth it appear that these three persons are all but one God? Plainly ; For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the

“pS Of the Holy Trinity. 65

Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, 1 John v. 7, that is, one God. Though this place of scripture be not extant in many ancient manuscripts, nor indeed in many ancient translations; yet in the days of ™ Arius, the grand oppugner of this truth, about three hundred and thirty years after Christ, it was never so much as questioned, and many of the ancient “fathers quote it. Which plainly shews that it was then received as canonical scripture, and therefore not to be questioned by us now.

And if we proceed to reason, here also, though the unity of ‘the Godhead be a truth which from natural principles may easily be demonstrated, yet the Trinity in the unity is a mys- tery which by the light of nature could never be discovered : forasmuch as our senses cannot perceive it, our tongues can- not express it, our experience cannot teach it, neither can our reason comprehend it.

It is true, Trismegist, Plato, and others seem by the light of reason to have seen into this hidden mystery: but if we weigh their words and sentences, we shall find they speak of three Divine essences, rather than of three distinct persons in the same essence. And the glimmering light they had is thought to be borrowed from such as had seen or heard of

m That it was not questioned in the days of Arius is plain, in that if it had, certainly Arius himself would have excepted against it when it was produced against him. For when Athanasius and he disputed con- cerning this truth in the Nicene council, Athanasius brings this amongst other places of scripture to prove it: mpos de rovrows Traow, (saith he to Arius) Ileavyns pdokes, kal of rpets Td €v cioiv. [ 44. vol. II. p-. 229.| And Arius makes no ex- ception at all against the authority of the place, as we may see towards the end of the said dispute, in the [second] volume of Athanasius’s works; which without doubt he would have done, if it had been then questioned.

n Dicit Dominus ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,

et tres untim sunt. Cypr. de simpl. prel. [p. 109. de unit. eccl.] And besides the place before quoted, Athanasius mentions it again in his first book, De unita Deitate Trini- tatis ad ‘Theophilum, in these words; Et unitum nomen naturale clause est declaratum dicente Johanne evangelista in epistola sua, ‘Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in ceelo, Pater et Verbum et Spiritus. [vol. II. pp. 606, 7.] And Fulgen- tius, In Patre ergo et Filio et Spi- ritu S. unitatem substantiz acci- pimus personas confundere non audemus. Beatus enim Johannes apestolus testatur dicens, Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt. Fulgent. in object. Arian. discus. object. to. [p. 176.] V. et Hieron. in prolog. epist. canon. [vol. X. p. 1057.]

FE

66 Of the Holy Trinity. Art:

the scriptures, rather than to have sprung from their own reasons. It is true also, that reason may offer at some dark resemblances of this great mystery ; °as, the sun begets beams, and from the sun and beams together proceed light and heat ; yet one is not before another, but only in order and relation to one another. PSo in waters, there is the fountain or well- head ; then there is the spring that boils out of that fountain ; then there is the stream that proceeds from both the fountain and the spring; and all these are but one and the same water. So God the Father is the fountain of Deity; the Son, as the spring, boils up out of that fountain; and the Holy Ghost, that flows from both. But such and the like instances may serve to illustrate this mystery to such as do believe it, but are no demonstrations of it to such as do deny it.

That which looks the most like a reason is drawn from God’s understanding and knowing of himself, and so in him- self begetting the lively image of himself, (as a man that looks in a glass begets the image of his own face,) and this is the second Person in the Trinity, called therefore the express image of his Father’s person: and from this God’s looking upon him- self, and representing himself to himself, cannot but proceed delight and rejoicing in himself ; whereby the Father and the Son delight in one another (as a man looking in a glass, if he smiles, his image in the glass smiles too, and seems to do whatsoever himself doth) ; and this mutual love to and joy in

[…]

P This is that which Ruffinus seems also to resemble this mystery by: De apertioribus requiramus. Fons quomodo ex se generat flu- vium, quo autem spiritu rapidum fertur fluentum? Quod quidem cum unum et inseparabile sit et fluvius et fons, tamen nec fons fluvius nec fluvius fons intelligi aut appellari potest: et tamen qui viderit fluvium, videt et fontem? Exerce te prius in horum explanatione, et discute, si potes, que habentur in manibus, et tune ad horum sublimiora venia- mus. Ruffin. in Expos. Symboli. [p. 18. ]

~ Of the Holy Trinity. 67

one another, is a third manner of being or subsistence in the Godhead, called the Holy Ghost. But these and the like are subtle speculations rather than solid arguments, and have more of a roving fancy than of convincing reason in them. Neither did I ever read or hear of any reason brought from natural principles for this mystery, but what by gainsayers might easily be evaded ; not because it is contrary (to), but because it is above reason. But howsoever that the Son is God, we shall prove in the next; that the Spirit is God, we shall prove in the fifth article; and that the Father is God, is acknowledged by all; and yet that there is but one God, we have proved before : from whence it will clearly follow, that there are three Persons, every one of which is God, and yet there is but one God.

And this was the ancient doctrine of the church of Christ. 4Justin Martyr saith expressly: “ Truly. there is one God over the whole universe, who is made known or acknowledged in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For seeing the Father of his own substance begot the Son, and issued forth the Spirit, there is all the reason in the world that they that have one and the same essence should be acknowledged to have one and the same Divinity.” And again: ’“ It is fit therefore that we should acknowledge and confess one God, made known unto us in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, acknowledging the several subsistences of one Deity; but as God, understanding the communion of those subsistences in the same essence. For Unity is understood in the Trinity, and Trinity is acknowledged in that Unity.” And elsewhere: s“ There is one God in the

[…]

yopiterat. Ibid. [7.]

[…]

ad Orthod. Quest. 139. [p. 502-] ER

Art,

coexistency of three Divine persons or subsistences ; which are differenced from one another, not in their essence, but in manner of subsistence. But the difference of the manners of existence doth not divide or difference what is in the essence.” And so Gregory Nyssen: ’“ In his essence he is but one; and therefore God commanded that they should look but upon one Name: but by the known properties or subsistences, it is distinguished into the faith of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And so Liberius in his Epistle to Athanasius: “ For neither the Son nor the Spirit is divided from the essence of the Father, which filleth heaven and earth. There is therefore, as I said before, a Trinity in one substance, undivided, but one in essence, one in Deity, one in power, one in dominion, one in glory, one in likeness, and one in Spirit, for the Spirit is not divided.” And Athanasius sends him word back again: * “ And there- fore is our faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in his Son the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. For these are of one unity, one power, one substance, one essence, one glory, one dominion, one kingdom, in the image of the Trinity, consubstantial ; by whom all things were made.” And there are amongst others three questions, which Atha~ nasius answers, that make much to clear this mystery, as well as to shew the judgment of the Fathers upon it. First, “ What is common to the holy Trinity?” To that he answers ; z« The essence is common; the eternity is common; the

68 Of the Holy Trinity.

[…]

z: Of the Holy Trinity. 69

power is common; the goodness is common; the wisdom, the justice is common: for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have all things common, or equally, but only their distinct properties. For it is the property of the Father to be un- begotten; of the Son to be begotten; and of the Holy Ghost to proceed.” Secondly, #“ How many essences dost thou acknowledge in God? I say, there is one essence, one nature, one form, one kind, one glory, one dignity, one dominion.” But, thirdly, >“ How many Persons dost thou acknowledge in God? I acknowledge three Persons, three subsistences, three properties, three individuals, three characters.”

But indeed there is searce any of the Fathers but offer themselves to bear witness to this truth; but I shall add only some select places out of St. Austin that make for the ex- planation, as well as confirmation of it. ¢“ But the Trinity,” saith he, “is only one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : not as if the Father was the same Person with the Son, or the Holy Ghost the same Person with the Father and Son; seeing there is in the Holy Trinity the Father of the only Son; the Son of the only Father; and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit both of the Father and Son: but by reason of one nature, and inseparable life, the Trinity (as far as man by faith can pry into it) is understood to be our one Lord God, or, our one Lord God is the Trinity itself; of whom it is said, Thou shalt worship the Lord, and him only shalt thow serve.” And presently after: ¢“ And all these are not confusedly

vel Spiritus Sanctus ipse sit qui Pa-

[…]

¢ Sed ipsa Trinitas unus Deus solus, Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanc- tus: non ut Pater sit ipse qui Filius,

ter aut Filius, cum sit in illa Trini- tate Pater solius Filii, et Filius Pa- tris solius, Spiritus autem Sanctus et Patris et Filii sit Spiritus: sed propter unam eamdemque naturam atque inseparabilem vitam, ipsa Trinitas, quantum ab homine pot- est, fide precedente intelligitur unus Dominus Deus noster, de quo dictum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. Aug. Epist. ad Maximum, [clxx. 3. vol. IT. p. 609. ] d Kt hee omnia nec confuse unum sunt, nec distincte tria sunt: sed cum sunt unum, tria sunt, et cum sunt tria, uuum sunt. Ibid. [5-]

70 Of the Holy Trinity. Arr.

one, nor distinetly three; but they are so one as to be three, and so three as to be one.” And again: ¢“ This Trinity is of one and the same nature and substance; not less in every one than in all, nor greater in all than in every one: but as much in the Father only, or in the Son only, as in the Father and Son together; and as much in the Holy Ghost. only, as it is both in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost together.” And elsewhere: f‘ Wherefore the true God is a trinity in per- sons, but one in nature: and by this natural or essential unity the whole Father is in the Son and Holy Ghost; the whole Son in the Father and the Holy Ghost; and the whole Holy Ghost in the Father and Son, None of them without any of the other; because none of them preceded the other in eternity, exceeds in greatness, or excels in strength.” And lastly, in another place he saith; & “ Plainly therefore, and without all doubt, it is to be believed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Almighty God, eternal, un- changeable; and every one of these is God, and all of them but one God: and every one of them is a full and perfect eternal substance, and altogether but one substance: for whatsoever the Father is, as he is God, as he is substance, as he is eternity, that is the Son, that is the Holy Ghost: and

e Hee Trinitas unius est ejus- demque nature et substantiz ; non minor in singulis, quam in omnibus, nec major in omnibus, quam in sin- gulis; sed tanta in solo Patre, vel in solo Filio, quanta in Patre simul et Filio; et tanta in solo Spiritu Sancto, quanta simul in Patre Filio et Spiritu Sancto. Ibid.

f Propterea ipse verus Deus in personis Trinitas est, et in natura unus est. Per hance unitatem natu- ralem totus Pater in Filio et Spiritu Sancto est, totus Filius in Patre et Spiritu Sancto est, totus quoque Spiritus Sanctus in Patre et Filio. Nullus horum extra quemlibet ipso- rum est: quia nemo, alium aut pre- cedit eternitate, aut excedit magni- tudine, aut superat potestate. Au- gust. de Fide; ad Petrum, cap. 1. [vol. VI. App. pp. 19, 20.]

& Plane ergo et absque omni du-

bitatione credendum est Patrem, et Filum, et Spiritum Sanctum unum esse Deum omnipotentem, eternum, incommutabilem: et singulus horum Deus, et simul omnes unus: et sin- gulus quisque horum plena et per- fecta aterna substantia, et simul omnes una substantia: quia quic- quid est Pater quo Deus est, quo substantia est, quo eeternitas est, hoc Filius, hoe Spiritus Sanctus. Ita etiam quicquid est Filius in eo quod Deus est, quo substantia est, quo zternitas est, hoc Pater, hoc Spiritus Sanctus. Et quicquid est Spiritus Sanctus in eo quod Deus est, quo substantia est, quo eternitas est, hoc Pater est et Filius. Una ergo in tribus Divinitas, una essentia, una omnipotentia, et quicquid substan- tialiter potest dici de Deo. Aug. de tempore, Serm. 38. [Alcuin. de Try ibselas cy itien pe 7098)

I. Of the Holy Trinity. “ol

so whatsoever the Son is, as he is God, as he is substance, as he is eternity, that is the Father, that is the Holy Ghost: and whatsoever the Holy Ghost is, in that he is God, in that he is substance, in that he is eternity, that is the Father, that is the Son: and therefore in all three there is but one Divinity, one essence, one omnipotence, and what else can be spoken substantially of God.”

Neither hath this truth been affirmed by particular Fa- thers only, but decreed also in several councils, as by the first general council at 5 Constantinople, the second council at iCarthage, the fourth council at ‘ Arles, the sixth at ! Toledo, the ™ Lateran council, an. Dom. 649; yea, and by an ancient council here in “England held under archbishop Theodorus, about the year of our Lord 670. But the fourth council at Toledo speaks the substance of them all: °“ According to the holy scriptures,” say they, “‘and the doctrine which we have received from the holy Fathers, we confess the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be of one Divinity and substance, believing a Trinity in the diversity of persons, and preaching unity in the Divine nature, we neither confound the Persons nor separate the substances.” And thus we conclude that in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

[…]

i Concil. Carthag. sec. c. 1.

k Concil. Arelat. 4. c. 1.

m Concil. Lateran. c. 1.

n V. Bed. Histor. Angl, 1. 4. c.

© Secundum enim divinas scrip- turas et doctrinam quam a sanctis patribus accepimus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unius Deita- tis atque substantiz confitemur, in personarum diversitate ‘T’rinitatem credentes, in Divinitate unitatem predicantes nec personas confun- dimus nec substantias separamus. Concil. Tolet. 4. c. [1. vol. III. pp,

578; 9-]

ARTICLE IL 4,

Notes

• Quoniam Deus vita est et in- corruptela et veritas. Irenzeus, adv. Heres. 1. 2. c. 18. (II. 13- 9-1 Deus est summa Vita, et summa Sapientia, et summa Dilectio. Quantum ergo vita vivit, tantum intelligit et tantum
• Hence saith St. Augustine ; Quisquis itaque dicit, si omnipotens est Deus, faciat, ut que facta sunt, facta non fuerint, non videt hoc se dicere, si omnipotens est, faciat ut que vera sunt, eo ipso quod vera sunt, falsa sint. Aug. [vol. VIII.] contra Faust. 1. 26. ¢. 5.
• Quod nos colimus, Deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, cor- porum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in orna- mento majestatis sue. Tertull. Apol. adv. gent. [c. 17.]
• Concil. Tolet. 6. c. 1,
• . [p. 160. ]