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 others that are plain, full, and purposely written to the contrary. What Mr. Le Clerc had produced from this father was not answered (which can in 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, that it cannot be questioned by those that have considered it." He mentions also in the Critical Epistles I spoke of before, his performance in proving this upon Gre gory; yet, of all the passages produced in that Life to justify this accusation, this is the hardest; that he in a certain sermon t 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 ano. ther, 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 this 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 * Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Ann. Preface. 100 places show that to be his real meaning. But in the Sabellian sense, which taught the persons to be numerically one, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are several names of one Person; and cousequently, 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 seein to favour that sense, because the Catholics were slandered by the Arians to hold that opinion, The 100 places that I spoke of [260], might be produced out of Gregory's works; but there happens to be a sufficient number in that very sermon, or oration, where there is this for One. He is there answering those who 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 μία Θεότης. And again, αμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις τ OOTS. But then he brings in an exception which they made against this answer of his : " 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 holds 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:— "But here [viz. in the case of men] the several men have no other unity than what is made by the conception of our mind, τὸ ἕν ἔχει μόνον ἐπινόιᾳ θεωρητὸν. 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. He then adds, to kai iμé 201 τερον ἢ τοῦτον, ἐδὲ αὕτη μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ, φησὶν ὁ ἐμὸς θεολόγος. ̓Αλλὰ τὸ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ συγκέιμενον ἐχ ̓ ἧττον ἡ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ τῷ ταυτῷ τῆς ἐσίας καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως. But our Deity [or God] is not so; nor is the portion of Jacob like them, as our theologian [meaning Jerem. 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.' It is impossible any thing should be fuller to the purpose than this. The proper difference between a numerical and a specifical unity is this: That a specifical unity is only by our conception; and the nunerical 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. 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 answer; but in such a fashion, as shews he had a mind to mar it in the reciting; and the like he does in several other passages of Gregory. In the forementioned comparison of the three Persons to the vein, the pond, and the stream, because the Greek word used by Gregory for the vein, is ópaluos, he translates it l'oeil, an eye. Whoever went about to represent the Trinity by an eye, a fountain, and a stream, so great a critic should not have been ignorant that it signifies there (as Elias Cretensis in his comments on the place had noted). the vein that feeds the pond, or the hole or opening of that vein into the pond; and this yet is not so absurd as where, a little after, the same words are translated an eye, a fountain, and the sun. There are a great many other places in that Life, where Gregory is made, by curtailing or altering his words, to speak nonsense; and I wish the main design of it were not to make him speak something that is by many degrees worse; for to hold three Gods, is not to be a Christian, nor any worshipper of Jehovah, but a Pagan. The very same oration furnishes us with several more proofs of the contrary. A little after the forementioned passage, he quotes and approves of a rule of Christian worship, given by his name-sake Gregory Thaumaturgus [154], or else by St. Basil; for the words are ambiguous, σέβειν Θεὸν τὸν Πατέρα, Θεὸν τὸν υἱὸν, Θεὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον τρεῖς ἰδιότητας, Θεότητα μίαν. uíav. That we are to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; three properties, one divinity.' At another place, in the same oration:-"The Three are One in the Godhead [or essence], and the One Three in properties [or Persons] that there may be neither One in the Sabellian sense, nor Three in that wicked sense now set up, viz. the Arian." and I desire the reader to compare the account of this oration or sermon, which he will conceive by these passages, with the account given by Mr. Le Clerc of the same oration; and if he doubt which is the truest, to read the oration itself, and some other of the same father's works, and so pass his judgment. This may be sooner done than to read the squabbles, pro con. about them; and indeed if people would choose to read the fathers and ancient writers themselves, rather than the scraps and quotations out of them, it were the only way to defeat the purpose of those who would defeat us of that strength and corroboration of the Christian religion, which accrues by the constant succession of its fundamental doctrines in all ages. I will mention but one passage more of Gregory, and that out of his oration concerning baptism*, out of which I recited before what properly concerns bap tism; but he there, speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose name they were to be baptized, explains their way of subsisting in the Godhead, so as any one will perceive he means a numerical unity of the essence; always provided that we make allowance for this; that they had not, as I said, any such settled use of words of a determinate meaning, specifical, numerical, &c. as we use now; but expressed their sense by paraphrasing as well as they could. But you will see that he means, that though they are in some sense three, yet that their essence or nature is one, and that numerically one; not three natures or essences all alike (as three men have) but one in number. "They are each of them God, as considered singly, viz. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each having his property; but the three together are God, when considered conjunctly. The first of which sayings is true, because of the consubstantiality; the other because of the monarchy for unity]. I no sooner go to think of one, but I am in my mind surrounded with the three shining round about me. I no sooner go to think distinctly of the three, but I am carried back to the unity [or to consider them as one]. When I am thinking of one of the three, I conceive him as the whole, and my mind has no room for any thing else; I find myself unable to comprehend the greatness of him, so as to leave any thing for the other. When I think of the three together, I see them as one Lamp, whose compacted light cannot be divided or measured." People's meaning about a doctrine is never better perceived than by observing, in some dispute about it, how and with what reasons one side attacks, and how the other answers. Let us therefore observe, in some * Orat. 40. |