the apostles.

6

6

CHAP. V. spring, yet the hurt of the stream will not affect the spring. And though it be the water of the spring which suffers in the stream, yet so long as it suffers in the stream, and not in the spring, the spring does not suffer, but the stream which is de'rived from the spring. So though the Spirit [or Deity] of God could suffer any thing in the Son, ' yet so long as it suffered not in the Father, but the 6 Son, the Father would not be said to suffer. But it is sufficient [to take off your argument] that the divinity suffered not at all in its own nature.'

If he had thought the essence to be only specifically the same, he would not have gone so far for an answer; the aim thereof is to shew, that though it be numerically the same in both persons, yet something might be said of one of them, which could not be said of the other.

But in other books the same writer affirms the numerical unity of essence more plainly, and in the "terms of the question, though not then in common use. For in his Apology, chap. xxi. he says, that the λóyos is de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus: Modulo alter, non numero. Spirit of Spirit, and "God of God: another in mode but not in number.' The same expression of modulo alius ab alio is also in the book against Praxeas, cap. 9.1 and to the same purpose, chap. xiv.

It is therefore plain, that Tertullian thought that in some sense the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are numerically one: which must be in respect of the substance; for as for the persons, the design of his whole book against Praxeas is to maintain that they 'are three in number.

k [P. 20. A. edit. Priorii.]

1 [P. 504. D.]

the apo

XI. Mr. Le Clerc does also endeavour to make CHAP. V. his advantage of Gregory Nazianzen, with whom Year after Curcellæus had not meddled. He pretended to stles. write the Life of this Father". One may easily see through his pretended reasons for it, and perceive that the design was to represent him as a tritheist : there are so many sayings of his wrested, and some false translated for that purpose. It is true, that 260 Gregory, in those voluminous disputations of his against the Arians and Sabellians, having no adversaries of the tritheistical opinion, and not fearing to be himself suspected of it, has some expressions in his arguments and explications unguarded on that side: yet so as that he still speaks with abhorrence of the belief of three gods. And it is a known rule of charity, that no consequences drawn from an author's expressions, are to fix on him an opinion contrary to his own express declaration : but that what he says at one or two places, seeming to favour any opinion, must be explained by others, if he have any other that are plain, full, and purposely written to the contrary.

What Mr. Le Clerc had produced from this Father was not answered, (which can no way so well be done, as by translating his works entire; a thing useful, if the modern readers of books had so much regard to antiquity as they ought: but such a regard is much lessened by such lives,) and therefore he concluded in another piece", that Gregory was undoubtedly of that opinion: the thing is so clear, it cannot be questioned by those that have con'sidered it.' He mentions also in the Critical m Biblioth. tom. xix.

6

n Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Annotations, preface.

3

the apo

stles.

CHAP. V. Epistles I spoke of before, his performance in provYear after ing this upon Gregory. Yet of all the passages produced in that Life to justify this accusation, this is the hardest that he in a certain sermon being busy in shewing the unfitness of all those examples of natural things which are commonly made use of to explain the Trinity, how they are all deficient and unapt in one respect or another, says: that he, as ' well as others, had thought of "the vein of water that feeds the spring, the spring or pond itself, and the stream that issues from it." Whether the 'first of these might not be compared to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. But he was afraid that by the similitude there would seem to be represented something numerically one; for that the vein, the spring, and 'the stream, are numerically one, though diversely ' modified or represented.'

This indeed plainly shews, that Gregory was afraid of representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as numerically one in some sense: but how? As having an essence numerically one? Not so: for he does in one hundred places shew that to be his real meaning. But in the Sabellian sense, which taught the persons to be numerically one, or, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are several names of one person and consequently that it may properly be said that the Father was incarnated, suffered, &c. He had the more reason to be cautious of saying any thing that might seem to favour that sense, because the catholics were slandered by the Arians to hold that opinion.

Orat. 37. de Spiritu Sancto. [31. in edit. Benedict. p. 556, &c.].

the apo

The one hundred places that I spoke of, might be CHAP V produced out of Gregory's works. But there happen Year after to be enough in that very sermon, or oration, where stles. there is this for one. He is there answering those 260. that thought, that from the confession of three persons in the Godhead would follow by consequence the doctrine of three Gods. He answers thus; that though there be three in whom the Godhead is, yet there is in them three but one Godhead, εἷς ὁ Θεὸς, ὁτὶ μιὰ Θεότης· and again, ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις ἡ ΘεόTMs. But then he brings in an exception which they made against this answer of his ;

Obj. But they will say, that the heathens (such ⚫ of them as had the most advanced philosophy) held that there is but one Godhead. And also in the case of men, all mankind has but one common nature. And yet the heathens had many gods, not ' one only: and also there are many men.'

This objection comes home to the point. And here it is that Gregory must declare, whether he hold a specific or a numerical unity. Therefore observe how he answers. To the case of the heathen gods he makes a separate answer, that concerns not this question. But to that of mankind having one common nature, and yet being many men, he answers thus:

Sol. But here [viz. in the case of men] the se⚫ veral men have no other unity than what is made by the conception of our mind,' rò ev exes μóvov éπνοία θεωρητόν 9. He goes on a while to shew that men do in reality differ from one another; and answers to the objection about the heathen gods: and then

#~

the apo

stles.

TO

CHAP. V. adds, τὸ δὲ ἡμέτερον οὐ τοιοῦτον, οὐδὲ αὕτη μερὶς τῷ Μακώβ, Year after φησὶν ὁ ἐμὸς θεολόγος. ̓Αλλὰ τὸ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ συγκείμενον οὐχὶ ἧττον ἢ πρὸς ἑαυτό: τῷ ταυτῷ τῆς οὐσίας Kai Tys duváμews". But our Deity [or God] is not 'so: nor is the portion of Jacob like them, as our Theologue [meaning Jeremy x. 16.] says: but every one of them [the persons of the Trinity] has an unity with, the other, no less than that which he has with himself, by reason of the identity of essence and power.'

6

6

It is impossible any thing should be fuller to the purpose than this. For the proper difference between a numerical and a specifical unity, is this; that a specifical unity is only by our conception: and the numerical unity is the only real unity. In the several men that differ in age, in shape, &c. there is something alike, viz. the essence or nature of man. This our mind abstracts from the rest, and conceives it as one in them all. But this common nature so abstracted from the individuals, subsists only in our mind: and in reality every man has his own essence distinct in number from the rest and if all other men were destroyed, he would have his own essence just as he has it now. And that which Gregory answers is, that several men have no other unity or sameness than what is by the conception of our mind, i. e. no other than a specifical unity. But each of the three, viz. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has an unity with the other, as much as with himself; by identity [or sameness] of essence and of power, which must be a numerical

one.

Mr. Le Clerc does indeed recite some of this an

[Orat. 31. §. 16.]