and he gives us the fame Account of the Difference between Generation and Proceffion; that One is a new Production (if I may fo express it) inventum, partum, & repertum, that is the Production of its own Image, of its own Wisdom and Knowledge by Self-reflexion; the other comes out of the Mind, as Love does, and therefore the Mind is the Principle of it, but not its Parent. Cur itaque amando fe non genuiffe dicatur amorem fuum, ficut cognofcendo fe genuit notitiam fuam: in eo quidem manifefte oftenditur, hoc amoris effe principium undè procedit: ab ipfa quidem mente procedit, quæ fibi eft amabilis antequam fe amet: atque ita principium est amoris fui,quo fe amat ; fed ideo non rectè dicitur genitus ab ea, ficut notitia fui, quà fe novit; quia notitia jam inventum eft, quod partum vel repertum dicitur, quod fæpe præcedit inquifitio eo fine quietura. This I hope is fufficient both to explain and justifie this Doctrine (which is the great Fundamental of the Christian Religion) of a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, and that Account I have given of it. It must be confeffed, that the ancient Fathers did not express their Senfe in the fame terms, that I have done, but I will leave any indifferent and impartial Reader to judge, whether they do not feem to have intended the very fame Explication, which I have now given of this venerable Mystery.. As for the Schoolmen, they generally pretend to follow the Fathers, and have no Authority, where they leave them: Sometimes they feem to mistake their Senfe, or to clog it with fome peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own. The truth is, that which has confounded this Mystery,has been the vain endeavour of reducing it to terms of Art: fuch as Na ture ture, Effence,Substance,Subfiftence, Hypoftafis, Perfon,, Teich. p. 287. 4 are one God and then they nicely distinguished be- An. Sh. W. p 64.225 tween Person and Hypoftafis,and Nature and Effence, and Substance, that they were Three Perfons, but One Nature, Effence and Substance; but then when men curiously examined the fignification of these words, they found, that upon fome account or other they were very unapplicable to this Mystery: for what is the Subftance and Nature of God? How can Three diftinct Perfons have but one Numerical Substance? what is the diftinction between Effence, and Perfonality and Subfiftence? The Deity is above An. SQ Wp 222 224 Nature, and above terms of Art; there is nothing like this myfterious Distinction and Unity,and there-, fore no wonder, if we want proper words to exprefs it by, at least that fuch Names as fignifie the Diftin-. ction and Unity of Creatures, fhould not reach it. I do not think it impoffible to give a tolerable Account of the School-terms and diftinctions,but that is a work of greater difficulty than ufe, especially to ordinary! Chriftians, and I have drawn this Section to too great a length already to enter upon that now. T 2 SECT. 230. Aught p226. SECT. VI. Concerning Expounding Scripture by Reafon. Creed. F Notes. OR like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Perfon by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion, to Say, there be Three Gods and Three Lords. By the Chriftian Verity I fuppofe is meant,the Sacred Books which contain the Chriftian Religion, that is,the Books of the Old and New Teftament.But do thefe Books, and does this Verity compel us to the acknowledgment of Three Perfons, each of which, is by himself Supreme God, and Lord, and yet all of them together but One God? Doth, I say, the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment? Is there any Text alleadged from Scripture, which all the Unitarians and fome or other of the most learned Trinitarians, do not easily interpret in fuch Senfe, that the Unity of God is preferved, and no more then One Perfon (even the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift) acknowledg ed to be God? See the History of the Unitarians.But if there is no Text of Scripture,but what is in the Opinion of fome or other of their own Learned Men, fairly capable of a Senfe contrary to the Faith delivered in this Creed, then we are not compelled to acknowledge this Faith. And the truth is, the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not as is commonly thought, a Clash of Reafon with Scripture; but it layeth here, whether, when the Holy Scripture may be understood as teaching only One God, or but One who is God, God, which agrees with the rest of Scripture, and with Natural Reason, we must notwithstanding prefer an Interpretation of it that is abfurd, and contrary to it felf, to reafon, and to the rest of Scripture, fuch as the Trinitarians Interpretation expreft in this Creed) appears to be ! In a word, the Question only is, Whether we ought to Interpret Holy Scripture, when it Speaks of God, according to Reafon, or not, that is,like fools, or like wife men. There is nothing in this long Paragraph to trou- Answer. ble an Answerers thoughts,but a great deal to exercife his Patience,if he be apt to be provoked by Arrogance and Folly. His first Argument to prove, that the Holy Scriptures do not compel us to confefs each Perfon in the ever bleffed Trinity to be God and Lord, and yet that there is but one God, is because it is a contradictory acknowledgment: So he says, and has endeavoured to prove it, and how vainly and impertinently, I leave the Reader to judge; but if a Trinity in Unity imply no Contradiction, as I am perfwaded, I have evidently proved; then I hope the Scripture may teach this Doctrine, and require the belief of it: but this is an impudent Argument, which brings Revelation down in fuch fublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings, to fay, fuch a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture, because it implies a Contradiction; whereas a modeft man would first inquire, whether it be in Scripture or not, and if it be plainly contained there, he would conclude, how unintelligible foever it appeared to him, that yet there is no Contradiction in it, because it is taught by Scripture: we must not indeed expound Scripture con trary tray to common Senfe, and to the common Reason of Mankind, in fuch Matters as every man knows, and every man can judge of; but in Matters of pure Revelation, which we have no natural Idea of, and know nothing of but what is revealed, we must not pretend fome imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and exprefs Authority of a Revelation; for it is impoffible to know, what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things, whofe Natures we do not underftand; as I fhowed before. His next Proof, That the Scripture does not compel us to this Acknowledgment, is, that the Unitarians, and fome of the moft Learned Trinitarians expound thefe Texts of Scripture, which are alledged for a Trinity in Unity to another Senfe, and eafily reconcile them with the Belief and Acknowledgment of One only, who is God, as well as of One God; and for this he refers us to that Learned Piece, the Hiftory of the Unitarians. As for examining particular Texts, which are alleadged on both fides in this Controverfie, it is too voluminous a Work at prefent, and befides my prefent Undertaking, which is only to vindicate the Athanafian Creed,and the true Chriftian Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, from the pretended Abfurdities and Contradictions charged on it in these Notes, and when that is done,(and I hope,I have done it) I dare trust any man of competent Understanding to judge which is most agreeable to the Scope and Language of Scripture. But as for what he fays, that the Unitarians or Socinians can easily reconcile all the Texts of Scripture alledged for the proof of a Trinity, to their Notion of One God in oppofition to Three Divine Perfons |