A Cure for the Cankering Error of the New Eutychians, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Queſtions and Anſwers about the Trinity.
Queſt. HOw many Perſons be there in that one Eſſence of God?
A. Three, and thoſe both in number, and in very deed diſtinguiſhed, the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt: which have their ſubſiſting in one Divine Eſſence: whereupon it comes to paſs, that there be not many Gods, but one God, and the ſame Eternal, Infinite, and Omnipotent, who is named JEHOVAH in the Scriptures: and ſaid to be moſt ſimple by reaſon of Eſſence, and three by reaſon of Perſons.
Q. By what teſtimonies of the Scripture do you prove the Trinity?
A. Gen. 1.1. God, or Elohim, created the Heavens and the Earth. In which place (the Learned ſay) the Verb being of the ſingular Number, doth ſignifie the moſt ſimple Eſſence of God: and the ſubſtantive Elohim being the plural Number, doth note out the three Perſons. Alſo in the creation of Man, God, as it were, taking counſel with his Eternal Wiſdom, that is, the Son and the Holy Ghoſt, ſaith thus, verſ. 26. Let us make Man after our Image. Where he ſaith, Let us make, becauſe of the number of the Perſons, and after our Image, becauſe of the unity of the Eſſence. Gen. 19.24. The Lord rained from the Lord brimſtone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrha: in which place the Perſon ſending the rain, and the Perſon from whom it was ſent, (that is the Son) is diſtinguiſhed from the Father.
Q. Have you any more pregnant proofs out of the New Teſtament?
Anſw. 1. In the Baptiſm of Chriſt, Matth. 3.16. and Joh. 1.32. the voice of the Father is heard from heaven, This is my beloved Son: In the ſame place there ſtands the Son, by the River Jordan, the holy Ghoſt deſcends in the form of a Dove and ſits on Chriſt.
2. Again, in the Transfiguration, there is the Son, and the voice of God the Father is heard from Heaven, and Chriſt is ſhadowed with a Cloud, which doth ſignifie the Holy Ghoſt. And further, Matth. 28.19. Baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: He ſaith not Names, but in the [Name] to ſhew the unity of the three Perſons. 2 Cor. 13.13. The Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghoſt be with you all.
Q. Seeing the Scripture doth not uſe the Name of the Trinity, doth the Church well to retain the ſame?
A. Yea no doubt: for the thing it ſelf is found in Scripture two manner of wayes: firſt, according to the letter: ſecondly, according to the ſenſe. Now fith that the ſenſe of it, and the very thing it ſelf is found in the Scriptures, the Church hath liberty to uſe ſuch words as may familiarly expreſs the thing it ſelf. Moreover, we call the three Perſons in God, the Trinity, from this word Three, whereof the word Trinity is derived, and is expreſly ſet down, 1 Joh. 5.7. There be three that bear Witneſs in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoſt: and theſe Three are One. Whence we argue, That as from One comes Unity, ſo from Three comes Trinity.
Q. How doth this word Eſſence differ from the word Perſon in God?
A. Eſſence is the Nature which is not more belonging to one, and leſs to another of the three Perſons, but common to them all; yea, one and the ſame, and cannot be divided, and is all in each one of them, not without them, ſubſiſting by it ſelf, to wit, the very Deity it ſelf. And therefore the Eſſential Properties which be in them, are one in Number, and of one Nature. Now a Perſon is the ſubſiſting in the Divine Nature, or the Nature of God, which having relation to others, is diſtinguiſhed by ſome incommunicatable Property: for indeed the Perſons are only diſtinguiſhed, and not ſervered; as three men are indeed ſeparated, though they be but one in kind. The reaſon is becauſe the Eſſence of God is infinite and impartible, and therefore it is all in every Perſon, which are not ſevered each from other, but only diſtinguiſhed amongſt themſelves. (But as for the Eſſence of Angels and Men, it is finite and partible, ſo that it is not all in eve…y ſingular Perſon, but part in one and part in another.)
Q. How many-fold is the difference of Perſons?
A. Twofold: inward, and outward. The inward difference is that which is cauſed by the internal Properties, or the works from within: concerning which we ſay, the works of the Trinity from within are divided: that is the works which God doth within himſelf, without any Creature are not common to the three Perſons, but are proper to one Perſon alone. Now the Property of the Father is this,Pſal. 2.5. Heb. 1.3, 5 Prov. 8.24. that he was not made not begotten, but hath begotten his Eternal Son of the ſame ſubſtance with himſelf. The Property of the Son is this, that he being neither made nor created, but was from all Eternity begotten of his Father without any Mother; who is of himſelf as he is God;Heb. 7.3. Col. 1.15. but of his Father as he is the Son. For as Light cometh from the Sun, even ſo the Son proceedeth from the Father; one diſtinct from the Father, and therefore the ſecond in order,Pſal 110.3 Mic. 5.2. ſo far forth as he is begotten: one and the ſelf-ſame with the Father as he is God. And here let us call to mind the ſaying of Nazianzene; The begetting of God, let it be honoured with ſilence: it is no ſmall matter for thee to learn that he was begotten. The Property of the Holy Ghoſt is to proceed from them both inſeparably.
Q. But did the Son take his Deity from the Father?
A. When we ſpeak ſimply of the Son without the Father, we avouch truly and properly that he is of himſelf, and call him God, becauſe of himſelf he hath his being, and all that he hath;Joh. 14 25 & 15.26. & 16.13, 14. Rom. 8.9. and therefore we call him one alone beginning. But when we point at that relation which he hath with his Father, we juſtly make the Father the beginning of the Son, and ſay that the Son received all from the Father, Joh. 3.23. For the Eſſence is one thing, and the manner of Subſiſting is another. Hence it is that the Schoolmen ſay, That the Son is by himſelf, not of himſelf. So the Eſſence of the Son is without beginning, but the Father is the beginning of his Perſon. This made Hilary to ſay; The gifts of the Father do not infirm but affirm the Divinity of the Son. And Auguſtine, Chriſt in regard of himſelf, is called God; and of the Father, is called the Son:
Object. 1. The Son and Holy Ghoſt are not without beginning, therefore they are not Eternal.
A. This is not a beginning of time or continuance, but only of order and offſpring.
Object. 2. But the Sabellians here cavil, and ſay Chriſt ſaith, He that ſeeth me, ſeeth the Father: and believeſt thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Joh. 14.9, 10. Therefore the Father and the Son are one Perſon.
A. Indeed he that ſeeth the Son ſeeth the Father, becauſe the Son hath the ſame Eſſence with the Father, and being manifeſted in the fleſh, hath delivered to us the whole Will of God, Joh. 1.18.
Object. 3. That which is one in Number, cannot without contradiction be ſaid to be Three in Perſons: but God is One in Number, (Deut. 6.4.) Ergo.
A. That Unity doth ſignifie God's ſimple Eſſence, not the manner by which that ſimple Eſſence ſubſiſteth. Therefore God abſolutely according to his Eſſence is One, becauſe he is indiviſible: And only in reſpect of inward relation, I mean the reaſon of ſubſiſting, is three.
Obj. 4. If there be one being of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghoſt: it followeth, that in God there are three divers Beings, and conſequently three divers Perſons.
A. The being of the Father doth not ſignifie that Eſſence by which he is abſolutely God, but by which he is Father, that is, in that he otherwiſe ſubſiſteth than doth the Son: therefore the being of the Father is one thing, and the being of the Son is another, and yet both of them have the ſame Eſſence.
Obj. 5. If there be three Perſons truly diſtinguiſhed, and one only Eſſence, then is there a quaternity in God.
A. Not ſo: for the Eſſence differeth from Perſon only in reaſon: but the Perſons differ each from other both in reaſon and in being.
Obj. 6. The Father begot his Son either exiſting or not exiſting; to ſay either of theſe is abſurd.
A. We may well ſay, That the Father begat his Son already exiſting, becauſe the Father was never without the Son, even as the Sun was never without its Light. Again, it may be as well ſaid, That he begat him not exiſting, in that his generation, although it be Eternal, yet in order goeth before Exiſtence, as the Sun is before its Light.
Queſt. Is this difference Rational, Eſſential, or Real?
Anſw. It is not Eſſential, as in the Creatures, where every one hath his proper Eſſence or Being, defined and circumſcribed: for the Eſſence of the Father is not one, and the Eſſence of the Son another, and of the Holy Ghoſt another, but one and the ſame, which the Father doth wholly communicate to the Son, the Father and the Son to the holy Ghoſt. Not only in reaſon, becauſe not in notion, or mind, or only in word is he called Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt: neither reſpectively or by relation; as one man may both be, and be called a Father and a Son: But it is real, or modal, yet altogether incomprehenſible, becauſe each Perſon hath his own peculiar definition, or his eſſential and incommunicable property, and differs from another not in eſſence, but in the manner of ſubſiſting.
Q. What is the outward difference?
A. It is taken from the works of God that be without, as that the Father ſends the Son, the Son is ſent as the Redeemer; the Holy Ghoſt is the Sanctifier. As in the Creed, the Father is diſtinguiſhed from the Son by the work of Creation, the Son by his Incarnation, the Holy Ghoſt from them both, by the work of Sanctification and Regeneration; as where he appeared like as a Dove, (Matth. 3.) and in cloven Tongues, Acts 2. Although all theſe things be effected by one and the ſelf-ſame God. As we uſe to ſay, The works of the Trinity without are indiviſible: therefore here let us remember the ſaying of Gregory Nazianzene: I cannot imagine one, but preſently I am compaſſed about on every ſide with the brightneſs of three: neither can I diſtinguiſh three, but forthwith I am brought again to one. Further, in the Perſons of the Deity there is an order, but there is none inequality: there is a diſtinction, but no diverſity.
Q. What things are contrary to this Doctrine?
A. 1. The Hereſie of Sabellias, who taught there was only one Perſon of the Godhead, but ſometimes in one reſpect, ſometimes in another, one while called the Father, another while called the Son.
2. Of Samoſatenus, who taught, That the Son did no more ſubſiſt in God, than Wiſdom, Juſtice, and Goodneſs.
3. Of Arrius, who denyed that the Son was begotten of the Eſſence of the Father, that he was co-eternal, co-equal, and according to his Perſon of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father.
4. Of Servetus, who affirmed that the word Perſon is no otherwiſe to be taken, then as in Comedies the name of a Perſon is uſed for the habit and the diſtinction of the office.
5. Of the Tritheitarites, who do transform the three Perſons into three diſtinct and ſeveral Eſſences: They deny the Son of God according to his Eſſence, to be of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father, and the Son to be God of himſelf.
6. The blindneſs of the Jews, who do affirm an Eſſence altogether without diſtinction. And here I will Anſwer to ſome Objections made by divers Hereticks.
Object. 1. If there be divers Jehovahs, there muſt be divers Eſſences: but (Gen. 19.24.) the firſt is true: for Jehovah did rain fire from Jehovah: that is, the Son from the Father: therefore the Son is a diſtinct Eſſence from the Father.
A. The Learned ſay, it is an Hebrew phraſe, ſignifying that God did miraculouſly rain fire of himſelf, from Heaven. Again, the word Jehovah is taken ſometimes perſonally, it is therefore a diſtinction in the Perſons, not in Eſſence.
Obj. 2. There is one life of the Father, and another of the Son, Joh. 5.26. therefore another Eſſence.
A. Firſt, that place is to be underſtood of a power communicated to Chriſt as he was Mediator. Secondly, Although the Son be from the Father, in reſpect of the origination of his Perſon, yet is he of himſelf, if he be abſolutely conſidered, and therefore hath the ſame life with the Father.
Obj. 3. They who have diſtinct Operations, have diſtinct Eſſences: but the Actions of the Trinity are diſtinct; Ergo.
A. The Propoſition is true, if it be underſtood of natural and external action: but if of internal and perſonal actions it is not true; for theſe do not take away the unity of Eſſence; ſince that the ſame Eſſence in number is wholly in every Perſon.
Obj. 4. Each Perſon hath not one and the ſame power, for the Father can beget the Son, the Son cannot beget; ergo they have not the ſame Eſſence.
A. They have all one natural power, but not perſonally; as there is one Nature, but not one Perſon.
Obj. 5. The Eſſence of the Father is communicated to the Son by Generation; therefore there is one Eſſence in the Father, another in the Son, becauſe there is one Eſſence begetting, and another begotten.
A. We muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt Generation and Communication; for the Perſon begets and is begotten, but the Eſſence neither begetteth nor is begotten, but communicated.
Obj. 6. If the Father and Son have one Eſſence, it muſt follow, that the Father was incarnate, which is abſurd; Ergo.
A. The Eſſence of God abſolutely conſidered was not incarnate, but the ſecond Perſon: and although the Perſon of the Son include the whole Eſſence of God, yet for the proper manner of ſubſiſting, it is diſtinguiſhed from the Father.
Obj. 7. If the Father and Son have one Eſſence, the Son ſhould be Mediator to himſelf.
A. The Son is properly Mediator betwixt us and his Father, not abſolutely betwixt us and the Divine Eſſence. And the office of Mediator dependeth upon the moſt free Ordination of God.Note.