wise Dispute on both sides if the Catholicks as well as the Arians had not allowed that the Son had a Substance of his own proper and appropriate to his own Person and as distinct from the Personal Substance of the Father as the Person of the Son is distinct from the Person of the Father to contend whence he had his Substance of the Substance of the Father or created out of Nothing when he has no Substance at all of his own proper and peculiar to him as a Son One would think these two Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism both which were rejected with equal Abhorrence by the Catholick Fathers might satisfie any Man what their Judgment was about a Trinity in Unity For if these Fathers understood both these Heresies and rejected them both asserted three substantial Persons in opposition to Sabellius and one Substance in opposition to Arius the Catholick Faith must lie between these two extremes and yet it is demonstrable that there is but one Medium between them If it be Haeresy to say that there is but One Personal Substance in the Deity as Sabellius asserted then three distinct substantial Persons must have three distinct personal Substances For this is the direct contradiction to the Sabellian Heresie of one Substance If the Arians deny'd one Substance not in the Sabellian Notion of One Substance but as one Substance signifies perfectly the same Divine Nature in Father and Son then One Substance as it is asserted by the Nicene Fathers in opposition to the Arians must signifie not one personal Substance but One Divine Nature which is perfectly alike and the same in Father and Son I challenge any Man living always excepting the Wonder-working Animadverter to shew me any Medium between the One Substance or the One Person of Sabellius and the Three Substances of different Natures and Species of the Arians but only the true Catholick Faith of Three substantial Persons or Three personal Substances of one and the same Nature both for kind and by Generation and Procession The reason of the thing is plain and evident which is the most I intend at present for I shall reserve Authorities as I intimated before for a particular Treatise which if God permit shall soon follow this and therefore St. Hilary and the Alexandrian Synod under the great Athanasius after the Catholick Bishops were recall'd from Banishment and restor'd to their Sees by Julian the Apostate shall serve now The Dispute is concerning One Substance and Three Substances in the Deity and it may be resolv'd into these three Questions 1. Whether the Son as begotten of his Father have a Substance and Nature proper to his own Person which is not the Personal Nature and Substance of the Father 2. Whether Three such Persons who have each of them a pesonal Nature and Substance of his own may be call'd Three Substance 3. In what sence then they are one Substance Whoever reads St. Hilary de Syn. adv Arianos will find all these Questions fully and expresly resolv'd I shall give but some few Instances of each As for the first he tells us that Life in the Father is Substance and Life in the Son which is begotten of the Father is Essence or Substance and that Life begotten of Life is Essence born of Essence and owns this as a universal Maxim which holds true in all Births That that which is born receives a Nature of its own from the Nature which begets and subsists in its own Nature that the begotten Nature receives its Nature from the Nature which begets And giving an Account why Wisdom says that she was both created and begotten The first he tells us is to exclude all corporeal Passions from the Divine Generation that the Nature of the Father suffers no change or diminution in the Generation of the Son no more than in the Works of Creation and by being begotten is signified that the Son receives his Nature not by Creation but by Birth and has a legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God the Father Once more In one of these Oriental Creeds they anathematize those who make the Eternal Substance of the only begotten Son of the Father to be the unbegotten Substance of God thereby making the Son to be the Father This St. Hilary explains and approves and acquaints us with the Occasion of this Decree viz. The Catholicks asserting the eternal Generation of the Son that he was begotten before all Time and in no Time some Hereticks took advantage of this to deny that there is any begotten Substance of the Son but only the unbegotten Substance of the Father and that under the denomination of the Son the Father who is undegotten and but one singular Person is both Father and Son to himself For to be born in no time seems to signifie not to be born at all this he calls The Heresie of Vnion or Sabellianism which this Decree condemns whereas as he adds to be eternal without any temporal beginning and to be unbegotten are two very different things that which is eternal may be begotten tho' not in time but that which is unbegotten is the sole eternal Author of its own being and all that he is This I think is home to the purpose to deny that the Son has a begotten Substance proper and peculiar to himself as a Son or to say that the Son has no other Substance but the unbegotten Substance of the Father is Sabellianism and which ought farther to be observed to say that the Father and Son have not a distinct Substance of their own but that the unbegotten Substance of the Father is the Substance of the Son makes Father and Son but one Person which shews that these Fathers and St. Hilary never dreamt of three Persons in one singular Substance Now if the three Persons in the Trinity are really distinct in substance and it is Heresy to say that the unbegotten Substance of the Father is the Substance of the Son any man would wonder what Haeresie it should be to say that there are three distinct personal Substances in the Trinity But to put this Matter out of doubt St. Hilary in the next place expresly vindicates the Synod of Antioch for attributing a proper Substance to each Divine Person and affirming that they are Three in Substance which he renders by Three Substances whereby he says they did not mean Three diverse Substances of different Kinds and Natures but Three Substances in opposition to the Sabellian Heresie which reviv'd again after the Nicene Council and gave these three Names to the Father and by a Trinity of meer Names without a subsisting Cause or Subject for each Name destroyed the truth and reality of Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore they said there were Three Substances thereby meaning three subsisting Persons not dividing and separating the Substance of the Father the Son and the Holy
therefore though there are three distinct Persons or Minds each of whom is distinctly and by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God yet there are not Three Gods but One God or One Divinity And if they will not allow that the same One Divinity or Godhead may be entirely and indivisible and inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds there is an End of a Trinity in Unity of Three Persons and One God For if the whole Divine Nature cannot subsist intirely indivisibly and inseparably and yet distinctly in Three either there cannot be Three each of whom is distinctly and by himself God or there cannot be one God whereas the scripture Notion of the Unity of God is not such an Unity as is only is one Person for then it could not enjoyn the Faith and Worship of Father Son and Holy Ghost but such an Unity as can be between Three when the same One Divine Nature is wholly and intirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation and that which is communicated whole and intire without Division or Separation makes no Number for it is but One still A Mind and Mind and Mind must be three Minds or Persons by reason of their distinct subsistence which belong to them as three but God and God and God as some of the antient Father speak are not Three Gods but One God because the same One Divinity totus ex toto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as both the Latin and Greek Fathers speak concerning the Generation of the Son is whole intire indivisible inseparable in all Three and Three distinct whole inseparable sames how hard soever it may be to conceive as to the Manner of it is the most natural and intelligible Notion of three and one and this is the Catholick Notion of a Trinity in Unity I forbear prosecuting this any farther here because I shall do it at large elsewhere 4. The next Charge is that it is Disagreeing and contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church I am truly sorry for this because it must unavoidably reflect on their Skill in Antiquity and the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but if the Animadverter has imposed upon them in this too they must thank themselves and take what follows I shall not multiply Testimonies in this Cause at present because I have a Treatise by me which is near finished upon this very Subject to give an Account of the Judgment of Catholick Fathers and Councils concerning a real and substantial Trinity and what their Notion of Thritheism is The Matter appeared to me so plain and demonstrable that I began to be weary of it as an unnecessary Work but this Decree has convinc'd me of the contrary and I now thank God that I am so well prepared to justifie the true antient Catholick Faith against the Pretences of those who judge of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church by Inspiration or Prophesie without knowing what the Catholick Fathers have said about it As Confident as these Heads are of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church those even of their Mind who have looked into the Fathers are not willing to stand to their Judgment in this Cause Some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers they give up to the Arians and they know not what to think of the Nicene Fathers themselves they spoke incautiously and bordered very near upon Tritheism nay some of them they think were down right Tritheists and they are in the right for they were all so to a man in this modern notion of Tritheism that I was glad to find they would own the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and put the Cause upon that issue The present Dispute is about Three distinct infinite Minds and Substances in the Trinity whether this be the Catholick Doctrine or Catholick Language now I suppose if it appear that they owned Three distinct Substances both Name and Thing there will be no Dispute about three Minds for the Substance of the Deity can be no other than infinite Mind Now this is a Wonderfull Dispute when the School-Men themselves own the Three Divine Persons to be Three Substances though they say they are not meer Relations without a Subject but relative Substances and we say so too That their Substances as their Persons subsist in an inseparable Union and Relation to each other But relative Substances Substances which are not absolute and independent but essentially related to each other as Father Son and Holy Ghost are Substances still and three distinct Substances as they are distinct Persons But this is not our present Inquiry what the Doctrine of the Schools is but what was the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers Now it is evident beyond all possibility of Denial that the Catholick Fathers one and all did assert Three substantial Persons in the Trinity against the Heresie of Sabellius who owned but one substantial Person with Three Names according to his different Appearances now besides that it is impossible to make sense of Three substantial Persons without three personal Substances for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie Three Substances had not these Fathers understood it in the Sense and Notion of three Substances they had not opposed Sabellius whose fundamental Principle was the one singular solitary Substance of the Deity They asserted indeed one Substance of the Deity against Arius but it was only in that sense in which Arius denied the One Substance He owned the Son to be a substantial Person who had a distinct Substance of his own and this the Nicene Fathers never quarelled with him for but he denied that the Substance of the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father but perfectly of a different Kind and Nature as not begotten of his Father's Substance but made by his Power In Opposition to this Heresie the Fathers taught not one singular Substance in God which is Sabellianism but such an Oneness of Substance as we know not how to express otherwise than by a specifick Sameness and Unity tho' that does not answer the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity but this is one Way the Fathers commonly express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and genus and such like Words as among us signifie the specifick Unity of Nature and therefore they tell us that by the Homoousion they only meant that the Son was so of the same one Substance with the Father that he is God of God Light of Light very God of very God that is true and perfect God as his Father is true and perfect God considered in his own Person as distinct from his Father that he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created out of nothing as all Creatures are but is truly begotten of the Substance of his Father and in that Sense Consubstantial or of one Substance with him as all other Sons are Consubstantial with their Fathers Now had not this been a very
Ghost by a diversity and dissimilitude of Essences So that St. Hilary thought that Three Substances when they are not used in an Arian sense to fignifie a diversity of Nature but only to signifie Three substantial subsisting Persons in opposition to Sabellius are very Catholick Words and contain a true Catholick sense in this sense and for the very same reason we use these Expressions of Three distinct infinite Minds and Three Substances And I hope these Heads will not take it amiss if One St. Hilary have more Authority with me than all they together 3. As for One Substance which was taught by the Nicene Council and inserted into their Creed St. Hilary very plainly and frequently tells us in what sense we are to understand it that there is one Substance of the same Kind and Nature in genere naturae secundum proprietatem naturae not one Substance as that signifies one subsisting Person but as it signifies perfectly the same Nature in every thing alike without the least difference or variation that the Homoousion signifies one Nature perfectly alike and the same by Natural Propagation because the Essence of the Son is from no other Cause but the Essence of the Father and therefore Father and Son may both be said to be of one Nature or Substance And for the sake of the Charge of Tritheism which the Anim adverter makes such a Noise with it will be necessary to observe that St. Hilary gives the same account of the Unity of the Godhead as he does of the Unity of the Divine Substance aud indeed they must be one in the same sense for one divine Substance is one God The Sardican Synod anathematiz'd those who said there were Three Gods And St. Hilary gives this account of it that speaking properly the Divine Substance or Nature will not admit of the plural Number to say that there are more Gods than One excepting when the Title of God is given to Men or Angels by way of Honour not of Nature But in the Nature of God there is but One God yet so that the Son is God because he has the same Nature without any unlikeness or difference with his Father and when there is God of God it cannot be but that each of them must be God because their Nature is not distinguish'd by a different Kind or Species and when he is anathematiz'd who says there are two Gods and he also is anathematiz'd who denies the Son to be God it is manifest that the same Name of God and One God is apply'd to both of them upon account of the same Nature without the least difference or diversity And adds that least the Doctrine of One God should seem to teach that there is but one singular Subsistance of one solitary God without his Son The same Synod condemns those also who under pretence of owning but One God profess only One singular and solitary God the Father under the Name of Father and Son whereas the Father who begets and the Son who is born are to be acknowledg'd One God upon account of the same Nature in both without the least difference or variation Were it not to shorten this Discourse I could easily furnish my Readers with Numerous Quotations to the same purpose out of St. Hilary to whom I now confine my self and particularly to his Book de Synodis that these Authorities may be the more easily found all together to prove That the Catholick Notion of One Divine Substance and One God does not signify One Personal Substance nor One singular solitary God who is but One Person but there is One Divine Substance and One God as the same Divine Nature is communicated whole and entire by the Father to the Son and by Father and Son to the Holy Spirit without the least difference or change or separation Which I shall explain more at large elsewhere Thus much for St. Hilary who has always been allowed a Credible Witness of the Catholick Faith for which he suffered Banishment under Constantius and is now condemned for a Heretick by the Oxford Heads But it is more wonderful to me that men who understand what Hypostasis signifies and in what sense it was used by the Nicene Fathers should condemn the Phrase of Three Substances in the Trinity as False Impious and Heretical when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Three Hypostases which is the Catholick Language is neither better nor worse than Three Substances In the Nicene Council it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in the same sense and both signify Substance And Petavius owns that all the Ancient Fathers used Hypostasis in no other sense but to signify Substance and then Three Hypostases are Three Substances And when afterwards they more nicely distinguished between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they still used Hypostasis in the notion of Substance that which did actually subsist which is therefore often rendred by the Latins extantia But to set aside other Observations the Alexandrian Synod under Athanasius is sufficient to put an end to this Dispute When the Catholick Bishops were recalled from Banishment by Julian several of them stopt at Alexandria and met in Council to advise about the broken state of the Church Among other things that fell under consideration there had a Dispute happened among the Catholicks themselves concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether they ought to say That there is but One Substance in the Trinity or That there are Three Substances for so it is plain that both sides understood Hypostasis in the notion of Substance To compose this Difference the Synod called both Parties before them and examined them in what sense they used these words As for those who said there were Three Hypostases in the Trinity they asked them Whether by this they meant as the Arians did Three Hypostases of a different Kind and Nature subsisting by themselves absolutely and independently as perfectly divided and separated from each other as other Creatures and as the Children of men are or as those things which have different Natures as Gold and Silver and Brass Or whether by Three Hypostases they meant as some other Hereticks did Three Principles or Three Gods All this they professed they had neither said nor thought And being asked again Why they then used those Expressions of Three Substances They answered Because they believed in the Holy Trinity not a Trinity of Names but a Real Subsisting Trinity a Father who really and actually is and subsists a Son who in truth and reality is a substantial subsisting Son and the Holy Spirit who actually is and subsists That they never said There are Three Gods or Three Principles but owned the Holy Trinity and but one Godhead one Principle and the Son consubstantial to the Father and the Holy Spirit neither a Creature nor of a different Nature but