yet) distinct from the eternal mind from whence it proceeds. And this is no novel subtlety of the schools, but a notion that runs through all the Fathers, even those of the first ages, as appears from the testimonies produced out of them in my Defensio Fidei Nicene, and it is also grounded on holy Scripture.

Hence the excellent Athanasius, than whom no man better understood the sense of Scripture and the doctors of the church that were before him in the article of the Trinity, insists upon it in his Oration against the Sabellians. In the beginning of which, having first shewn how the catholic church of Christ, in her notion and worship of God, differs from the heathens and Jews, he proceeds to declare the difference betwixt the orthodox Christians and the Sabellians, and other Unitarians of his time, who under pretence of defending the unity of the Godhead, denied all distinction of hypostases therein. His words are these; "We are separated also from "those who corrupt Christianity with Judaism, who, ' denying the God of God, profess one God as the "Jews do, affirming him (the Father) to be the only

66

66

God, not upon account that he only is unbegotten, "and the only fountain of the Deity, but as if he "were without a Son, and barren, and void of his

66

living word and true wisdom. For they conceive "the word of God to be such as proceeds from the "mind of man, and his wisdom to be such as that "of ours; and therefore affirm God with his Word "to be one person, just as we say that a man toge"ther with his word is one man; being in this no "wiser than the Jews, who own not the Evangelist "in the beginning of his Gospel, proclaiming, In

the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "with God, and the Word was God. For if God "hath a word in his mind not really begotten of "him as God of God, how could the Word be with

66

God, and how could it be God? For the word "conceived in the mind of man is not a man with "another man, seeing it neither lives nor subsists, "but is only a motion or operation of the same living subsisting mind.”

66

This great man took it for granted, that St. John, in the text alleged, meant that the Word was with God in the beginning, before any created being existed, and consequently that he is called the Word of God, not with respect to the creatures, (though it is true that he afterwards revealed the will of God to mankind, and might in that respect also be called the Word of God,) but with respect to God the Father, whose Word he eternally was, and with whom he was in the beginning; and therefore he was not the same hypostasis with him, and yet he was God as well as the Father. He had never heard of the senseless interpretation of Socinus, who by the beginning in that text understands the beginning of the Gospel; there being then no heretic (among those many that opposed the divinity of our Lord) who had the confidence to advance so ridiculous a sense of those words: Lælius Socinus hath the honour of that interpretation.

If it be objected, that all this being granted proves only two hypostases in the Godhead, not a Trinity; I answer, 1. This proves that a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead is very consistent with its simplicity; nay, that from the true notion of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction neces

sarily follows. 2. If there be two hypostases in the Godhead, there may be a third; and that there is a third, the holy Scripture assures us. Indeed, I do not remember that any of the Fathers of the first three centuries have attempted to explain distinctly the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, or from the Father by the Son; there being little or no dispute concerning the divinity of the Holy Ghost till Macedonius appeared, and disputed the faith of the church in that article. For before him, all the Antitrinitarians, of what sort soever, chose especially to oppugn the divinity of the Son of God, taking occasion from those texts of Scripture which respect his human nature, and that economy which for our salvation he took upon him. Which pretence seeing they had not to make use of in disputing against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, they thought it best to say nothing of it, contenting themselves in opposing the divinity of the Son, and by consequence to overthrow that of the Holy Spirit. But in general I have observed, that those primitive Fathers held the Holy Ghost to be as it were vinculum Trinitatis, "the bond of the holy "Trinity," the union of Father and Son. Hence some ancient doxologies run thus, "Glory be to the "Father and the Son in the unity of the Holy "Ghost." And the most learned Christian philosopher, Athenagoras, who flourished very near the first succession of the apostles, expressly affirms the Father and the Son to be one, ἑνότητι Πνεύματος, i. e. by the unity of the Spirit; which I think imports the same thing with what St. Augustin and other

[ P. 287. in ed. Just. Mart.]

later Fathers say, that the Holy Ghost is Amor Patris et Filii. But this by the way.

66

There is another notion which frequently occurs in the writings of the primitive Fathers, tending to shew the incongruity of asserting the Godhead to be so simple a being, as to be povoпрóσwпоs, a solitary single hypostasis, which hath also a foundation in the holy Scriptures, and it is this; "without acknowledging a distinction of hypostases in the "Godhead, we cannot well conceive that auráρKEIα "which we attribute to God, i. e. his self-sufficiency "and most perfect bliss and happiness in himself " alone, before and without all created beingsf." But by admitting this it plainly appears, that himself alone is a most perfect and blessed society, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit eternally conversing with and enjoying each other. See Prov. viii. 22, to 31 inclusive: where the wisdom of God, which is said to be with God from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was, and to be his continual delight, all the Fathers unanimously understood to be (as indeed the words themselves literally and plainly import) Σοφία ὑφεστῶσα, a subsisting personal wisdom, i. e. the Son of God, who is accordingly by

f Ante omnia Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia: solus autem quia nihil aliud extrinsecus præter ipsum ; cæterum ne tunc quidem solus; habebat enim secum, quam habebat in seipso, rationem suam scilicet. Hanc Græci Aóyov dicunt. Tertul. advers. Prax. cap. v. Satis igitur nobis scire solum, nihil esse Deo coævum; nihil erat præter ipsum, ipse solus multus erat. Neque enim erat sine ratione, (Gr. T Aóyw,) &c. Hippol. Hom. de Deo trino et uno. Bibl. PP. tom. XV. p. 622. Οὐ θέμις ἔστιν, οὐδὲ ἀκίνδυνον διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἡμῶν τὸ ὅσον ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἀποστερεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ ἀεὶ συνόντος αὐτῷ Λόγου μονογενούς· Σοφίας ὄντος ᾗ προσέχαιρεν oûtw yàp ovdè àeì xaípwv vononoeta.. Origen. apudAthanasium, tom. I. p. 277. [de Decret. Nic. c. 27. p. 233.]

St. Paul expressly styled the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i. 24. And that the Aoyos, or Son of God, was known by the ancient Jews themselves under the title of the wisdom of God, sufficiently appears from many passages in Philo, and from the author of the Book of Wisdom, chap. vii. 26. compared with Col. i. 15. and Heb. i. 3.

To conclude: The doctrine of the church concerning the blessed Trinity hath been abundantly confirmed by catholic writers, both ancient and modern, from many clear texts out of the holy Scriptures; which as they assert the unity of the Godhead, so do they also plainly teach us, that there are three to whom the essential attributes and proper operations of the Godhead do belong, viz. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The interpretations, whereby Socinus and his more immediate followers endeavoured to elude the texts alleged by the catholics, are so manifestly forced and strained, that I do not see how any honest mind, that bears any reverence or respect to the sacred Scriptures, can away with them. This the Socinians among us of late seem to be sensible of, and therefore have taken a shorter, but more desperate course, by calling in question the authority of the principal Scriptures alleged by us. Thus the author of the pamphlet, entitled The Judgment of the Fathers, &c. disputes the authority of the Gospel of St. John. For he tells us from Epiphanius, that the Alogians or Alogi (whom, according to his accustomed impudence, he highly magnifies, and affirms to be the purest and most ancient Gentile Christians, yea and coeval with the apostles, whereas Epiphanius & expressly saith, that the he

g

s Hær. LI. in ipso initio.