An.sh. W. p 171. An⋅ SR hp 319 Nature must not be expreffed plurally, how many Perfons foever there are, who have the fame Nature. This was to fecure the Homooufiotes of the Divine Nature, and if he had stopped here, Petavius and Dr. Cudworth might have faid, what they pleafed of him; but having fecured the Homooufiotes or Sameness of Nature, which was the great difpute of those days between the Orthodox and the Arians, he proceeds to fhow, how this fame Nature in Three 'diftinct Perfons is united into one numerical Effence and Godhead; and this he does first by showing, that God fignifies Power and Energie, and that all the Three Perfons in the Trinity have but One numerical Energie and Operation, and therefore are but One God; which is only the improvement of his former Argument; for the Sameness of Nature is neceffary to the Sameness of Operation; for Nature is the Principle of Action, efpecially in God, whofe Nature is a pure and fimple Act, and an unity and fingularity of Energie and Operation is a demonftration of Óne numerical Effence; for the fame fingle individual Act cannot be done by Two feparate Be ings, who must act feparately allo. ·Secondly, As for thofe, who are not contented to contemplate God as a pure and fimple Act or Energie, which eafily folves this difficulty, how Three Perfons are One God, they having but One numerical Energie and Operation; I fay, as for those who not contented with this, inquire after the Unity of the Divine Nature and Effence, he afferts that this perfect Homooufiotes or Sameness of Nature, without the leaft difference or alteration makes them numerically One; and returns to what he had first faid, That the Name of Nature fhould not be expreffed Plurally, it being One entire undivided Unity, which is neither encreased nor diminished by subfifting in more or fewer Persons. Ἐπεὶ ἢ πᾶσαν - πωθεῖται κατ' ὅταν ἑτερότητα ἡθεία τε κ ἀπὸ σις, ὡς ἂν μία ἦν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς & προ I confefs, I do not understand his reasoning in this Anshep 359. matter, he seems to destroy all Principles of Individuation, whereby One thing is diftinguished from another, where there is no difference or diverfity of Nature; for Things, he fays, must be diftinguifhed as 7,227 by Magnitude, Place, Figure, Colour, or fome other diversity in Nature,before we can number them, and call them Two or Three: and therefore fince the Divine fimple unalterable Nature, admits of noth & Te Effential diverfity, that it may be One, it will not Nyflibid.p.456. admit of any number in it self, but is but One God. Whereas I confess to my understanding, if the fame pure unmixt Nature, as fuppofe Humanity, should fubfift in Twenty feveral Perfons, without the least variation, I fhould not doubt, notwithstanding the Specifick Unity of Nature, to fay, there are Twenty fubfifting Human Natures; and Three Minds · An. SQ. W p118 and Spirits, which have no other difference, are yet diftinguished by felf-confcioufnefs, and are Three diftinct Spirits: and therefore to help this out, he fometimes adds, that there is μήτε φύσεως μήτε ενερ γείας τινὰ διαφορὰν ἐν θεότητι, no difference either of Nature or Energie in the Deity; and at other times, ἡ Θεία φύσις ἀπαράλλακτα και αδιαίρετα, the Dil απαράλλακτος vine Nature is invariable, and undivided; which all the ancient Fathers added to explain the Unity of the Trinity, that infeparate Union of Nature, which is between the Divine Perfons, that they are 50 infeparable from each other. But An Sh he Ibid.p.459. But hower he might be mistaken in his Philofophy, he was not in his Divinity: for he afferts a numerical Unity of the Divine Nature, not a meer Specifick Unity, which is nothing but a Logical Notion, nor a Collective Unity, which is nothing but a Company, who are Naturally many; but a true fubfifting numerical Unity of Nature; and if the difficulty of explaining this, and his zeal to defend it, forced him upon fome unintelligible Nicities,to prove that the fame numerical Human Nature too is but one in all men, it is hard to charge him with teaching, that there are Three Independent and Coordinate Gods, because we think he has not proved, that Peter,James, and John, are but One man. This will make very foul work with the Fathers, if we charge them with all thofe Erronious Conceits about the Trinity, which we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable Mystery, expecially when they compare that mysterious Unity with any Natural Unions. I am fure St. Gregory was fo far from suspecting that he should be charged with Tritheifm upon this Account, that he fences against another Charge of mixing and confounding the Hypoftafes or Persons by denying any difference or diversity of Nature ὡς ἐκ τὸ μὴ δέχεται ἢ κατὰ φύσιν διαφοράν, μίξιν τινὰ τ υποςάσεων καὶ ἀνακύκλησιν κατασκεύαζοντα which argues, that he thought he had fo fully afferted the Unity of the Divine Effence, that fome might fufpect, he had left but One Person, as well as One Nature, in God. But though the Homooufiotes or Coeffentiality of 18 the Divine Persons is not fufficient alone to prove this Unity of the Godhead, yet as I before obferved, a this is neceffary to an effential Unity, for they must all have the fame Nature, or they cannot be One, and therefore this was the first thing to be confidered in the Unity of the Godhead. Secondly, To this Homo-oufiotes the Fathers added 4n top 172 177. a numerical Unity of the Divine Effence. This Pe- Petavii Vol.2. tavius has proved at large by numerous Testimonies, 4. c. 13. 14. even from those very Fathers, whom he before accufed for making God only collectively One, as Three Men are One Man ; fuch as Gregory Nyffen, St. Cyril, Maximus, Damafcen; which is a demonftration, that however he might mistake their explication of it, from the Unity of human Nature, they were far enough from Tritheifm, or One collective God. For we must observe, though all the Fathers affert, the fingularity of the Godhead, or the numerical Unity of the Divine Effence, yet they do not affert fuch a numerical Unity, as there is, where there is but One Person as well as One Effence; but such a numerical Unity, as there is between Three, who are Suosas, of the very fame nature, but are not meerly united by a fpecifick Unity, but by an effential Union, and therefore are Three and One. This as Maximus truly fays, is magido is n diαipers is vwas, both a wonderful diftinction and union, but though feveral Fathers attempt several ways of explaining it, they all agree in the thing; that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, Three diftinct Divine Perfons, are united in one numerical Nature and Ef fence. ὁμούσιοι of ex- An-sh hej 180. And I cannot but obferve, that Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this Mystery, which is the very fame he had before condemned in К Gregory Gregory Nyffen, and those other Fathers. That FaIbid. p. 430. ther, Son, and Holy Ghost are One God, not Three Gods: Cujus conjun&tionis ratio est indifferentia: the reafon or manner of which Union and Conjunction is their indifference; that is, fuch a fameness of Nature as admits of no difference or variety, or an exact Homo-oufiotes, as he explains it: Eas enim differentia comitatur, qui vel augent vel minuunt ut Ariani qui gradibus meritorum Trinitatem variantes diftrabunt, atq; in pluralitatem deducunt: Thofe make a difference, who augment and diminish, as the Arians do, who diftinguith the Trinity into different Natures, as well as Perfons, of different worth and excellency, and thus divide and multiply the Trinity into a plurality of Gods. Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est: Præter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid fit intelligi potest: For the beginning of plurality is alterity; for we know not what plurality is but alterity: that is, there inuft be fome difference in the Nature of Things to make them Two or Three, but when the Nature is exactly the fame, they are but One: which is exactly the fame account, which Gregory gave of it, as I have already fhewn; and why this fhould be little better than Herefie in him, and very good Divinity in Boethius is a little myfterious; for after all, this numerical Unity of Effence απαράλλακτος is nothing elfe, but an ἀπαράλληλα ομοσπόλης, where there are no rules, as Maximus fpeaks, fuch an invariable fameness of Nature, as has no differences to distinguish it, and therefore must be One: For thefe Fathers apprehended, that where there was fuch an exact famenels of Nature, they did mutually exift in each other, and were but One Power and Energie, Will and Counfel, and therefore but One God head |