I shall not here discuss with him the Criticism upon which he lays so mighty stress of one individual nature and one single nature, but take the terms he chooses, and if the Divine Nature be not one single nature, it must be double, it must be triple. And what doth this come to less than three Natures? unless all ordinary forms of speech must be quite abandoned and forsaken. And wherein doth it come short of what is said by the Enquirer? p. 50. and 51. This term individual must (in the case now supposed, as possible not as certain) admit of a twofold application either to the distinct essence of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost; or to the entire essence of the Godhead, ⟨p. 10⟩in which these three do concur. Each of these conceived by it self, are (according to this supposition) individual essences, but conceived together they are the entire individual essence of God, for there is but one such essence and no more, and it can never be multiplied nor divided into more of the same name and nature. Duplicity, triplicity, are admitted; simplicity rejected, if (simple and single be of the same signification.) Where is the difference, but that the one thinks absolute omnimodous simplicity is not to be affirmed of the Divine Nature, as he often speaks. The other says downright, it is not single or simple without limitation. The one denies multiplication of it, so doth the other: The one indeed speaks positively, the other doth but suppose what he says as possible not certain. And there is indeed some difference between supposing a thing as possible for ought one knows; and affirming it so positively, as to impute Heresy, and Nonsense ⟨p. 11⟩to all Gainsayers. But both bring for proof, the same thing, The incarnation; as in the Postscript, the Defender takes notice the Enquirer doth. p. 102. And so doth he himself in his letter, p. 102. — The Divine Nature was incarnate in Christ, he was perfect God and perfect man, and if there was but one single Divine Nature in all three persons, this one single Divine Nature was incarnate, and therefore the Father and the Holy Ghost who are this single Divine Nature as well as the Son, must be as much incarnate as the Son was. He makes the contrary absurd. And brings in (fitly enough) Victorinus Afer teaching, that we ought not to say, nor is it lawful to say, that there is but one substance (i. e.
I shall not here discuss with him the Criticism upon which he lays so mighty stress of one individual nature and one single nature, but take the terms he chooses, and if the Divine Nature be not one single nature, it must be double, it must be triple. And what doth this come to less than three Natures? unless all ordinary forms of speech must be quite abandon'd and forsaken. And wherein doth it come short of what is said by the Enquirer? p. 50. and 51. This term individual must (in the case now supposed, as possible not as certain) admit of a twofold application either to the distinct essence of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost; or to the entire essence of the Godhead, ⟨p. 10⟩in which these three do concurr. Each of these conceived by it self, are (according to this supposition) individual essences, but conceived together they are the entire individual essence of God, for there is but one such essence and no more, and it can never be multiplied nor divided into more of the same name and nature. Duplicity, triplicity, are admitted; simplicity rejected, if (simple and single be of the same signification.) Where is the difference, but that the one thinks absolute omnimodous simplicity is not to be affirmed of the Divine Nature, as he often speaks. The other says downright, it is not single or simple without limitation. The one denies multiplication of it, so doth the other: The one indeed speaks positively, the other doth but suppose what he says as possible not certain. And there is indeed some difference between supposing a thing as possible for ought one knows; and affirming it so positively, as to impute Heresie, and Nonsense ⟨p. 11⟩to all Gainsayers. But both bring for proof, the same thing, The incarnation; as in the Postscript, the Defender takes notice the Enquirer doth. p. 102. And so doth he himself in his letter, p. 102. — The Divine Nature was incarnate in Christ, he was perfect God and perfect man, and if there was but one single Divine Nature in all three persons, this one single Divine Nature was incarnate, and therefore the Father and the Holy Ghost who are this single Divine Nature as well as the Son, must be as much incarnate as the Son was. He makes the contrary absurd. And brings in (fitly enough) Victorinus Afer teaching, that we ought not to say, nor is it lawful to say, that there is but one substance (i. e.
