Oecumenical or National He must therefore only be so either virtually or by way of representation And sure some such thing he fancies of himself viz. that the Christian Faith or at least the words wherein it is to be expressed are committed to his care or rather are to be disposed of at his pleasure Otherwise sure he would never talk as he doth in this book For instance p. 16. He hath these remarkable words Now since Person is the Catholick word which long Ecclesiastical use hath rendered familiar I should by no means allow of any other word in this mystery could we retain the Catholick Faith together with the word What must words be used or laid aside at his discretion He acknowledges the word to be Ecclesiastical the Church hath made it her own she hath adopted it into her Creeds and confessions of her Faith by long use it is now rendered familiar and is become the common Language of all Christians What Authority I pray hath he to order the laying of it aside I should by no means allow c. It is fit he should be told upon this occasion that this word was anciently used without his leave and will still continue to be so without his allowance For neither the faith nor language of the Church have any such dependance upon him as that they must stand or fall at his pleasure But lastly whatever Authority the Church may have to alter the usual and received forms of speech yet to be sure she would never exercise it except forced as was intimated before by some very great and some very apparent reason To this he answers that there is as great reason and necessity for such an alteration of words now as ever there was in any age of the Church p. 12. And the reason that he assigns is this viz. That we are in great danger of losing the Catholick Faith by the revival of the Heresy of Sabellius p. 16. which walks publickly abroad tho under the disguise of a new name And if we believe him it is one of those doctrines too publickly received in the Church of England which are not the true doctrines of our Church p. 44. Now this I cannot but say is not only extremely false but likewise a very scandalous suggestion Because it must not only affect our own times and Nation but likewise bring all other Churches Ancient and Modern Eastern and Western Roman and Reformed under the same suspicion For all these are at perfect agreement both in the belief of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in the manner of expressing their Faith which is by the profession of three persons and one nature or substance So that if by retaining the old words there is danger of losing the Catholick Faith it must be lost out of the Catholick Church and this revolt to Sabellianism must be both the most lasting and the most general Apostasy that ever was foretold or feared should happen to the Christian Church But as to what may concern this Church I believe if all wise and good men in it have reason to fear any danger 't is from another quarter I mean from the revival of the Heresies of Arius Pelagius and Socinus which some evil men with great industry and with no small art endeavor to propagate among us But 2dly Tho the charge of Sabellianism be a very great and heavy one yet we ought not to look upon it to be such a bug-bear as thereby to be affrighted out of our Religion We may comfort our selves with this that this imputation is no other nor better than what hath formerly bin made by Hereticks against the Orthodox For the Arian against whom Zanchy wrote in his Antithesis doctrinae Christianae Antichristi de uno vero Deo and Valentinus Gentilis in order to establish his Doctrine of three distinct infinite Spirits made the very same objection against the Catholick Faith with relation to the error of Sabellius Cantilenam Sabellii nobis obgannit saith Aretius of Gentilis eandem nobis cantilenam occinit Decanus may we say But as they who believe three persons and but one nature or substance are as far from being Sabellians as any the greatest Tritheist so they no doubt will be as ready to oppose the attempts of such who at any time hereafter may endeavor to revive the Heresy of Sabellius But in order to combate that Heresy they will not think themselves obliged to use any other weapons than those with which in former times it hath bin so succesfully vanquished The faith hath bin transmitted down to us for these thirteen centuries in that form of sound words viz. Three Persons and one nature and hath conquered all opposition made against it and in all times since they who have refused the Language of the Church have bin justly suspected to be no true friends to the faith of it which now by long use and the prescription of so many ages have contracted such a friendship that they are like to live or die together And therefore we find none as I now intimated who in any times heretofore either quarrelled with or rejected the words established in the Church but either open Hereticks or such who were justly suspected to favor their errors Thus of old the Arians and Semi-Arians were displeased with the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words troubled and gave offence to many forsooth and were such as rather perplexed than explained this Doctrine being above the reach of mens understanding and conceptions So the Polish and Transylvanian Unitarians in their times made the same complaints That the Church by using those words homoousion Person Essence Unity Trinity had perfectly confounded all right notions of God and in a manner overturned the Christian Religion Valentinus Gentilis echoed back the same calumnies from Bern and Geneva and called the former words monstrosae profanae voces quibus omnia divina mysteria pervertuntur And to bring up the rear we find the Dean in his vindication declaring his displeasure against them in the like expressions p. 138. where he tells us that that which hath confounded this mystery hath bin the vain endeavor of reducing it to terms of art such as Nature Essence Substance Existence Hypostasis Person and the like I am sorry to find him in such ill company Tho I charitably hope he is not engaged in the same evil designs with them However it will become all men of wisdom and integrity to avoid giving any the least countenance to such tho but suspicious practices which we have reason to think were first set on foot on purpose to undermine our holy Faith and Religion There is one thing more to be observed before I come to consider the propositions which I had almost forgotten but it must not by any means be omitted and that is his very curious and critical remark upon the Latin Decree p. 5. where he tells us that he who
as far as in them lies the growth of any pernicious Doctrines in Religion Some such had bin preached among them which they had reason to fear might in time gain ground if not timely obviated To prevent therefore the infection and growth of such false and impious opinions they thought fit to publish their Decree which as I said before had a particular regard to those persons who were committed to their care eorum fidei curae commissis But this Dean like an Universal Pastor and Bishop sets himself as it were in Cathedra and from thence he dictates to the whole Church He lifts up his voice as if he would say audiat orbis Christianus I do declare and let all persons take notice of it at their peril that the Doctrine of three Persons and one God or one Substance in the God-head which is all one as shall be shewn by and by is Sabellianism is Heresy and nonsence Would not this Dean think you have done well to have advised with some men of skill and learning how far the reputation of his wisdom and modesty not now to mention the Integrity of his Faith which thereby may be justly called in question might be affected by such a bold and presumtuous declaration The next instance of his great modesty may be found in the 11th and 12th pages of this examination where he makes an Apology for the use of new forms of words unusual unscriptural forms of speech in order to explain and declare as he calls it the Catholick Faith several of which as it is very well known this examiner had invented and made use of to this purpose in his vindication of the blessed Trinity and for which he was justly called to an account by the learned Animadverter Now among other things which he offers in vindication of this bold and dangerous practice p. 12. he tells us That the Church tho it never had authority to make a new Faith yet it always had and always will have authority to declare and explain the true Catholick Faith in such words as are most aptly expressive of it and necessary to countermine the Arts and Evasions of Hereticks And this he saith will justify the use of such expressions as these Three distinct infinite Minds and Spirits or three substances how novel soever they may be thought To this suggestion of his I have several things to Answer First he saith the Church hath Authority to use new and unusual forms of words in Articles of Faith But I am apt to think she would be very unwilling to exercise her power and would never do it except when pressed with a great and an unavoidable necessity We have reason to think it would be one of her last remedies when all other methods of preserving the faith had proved ineffectual It is true indeed in the Ancient Church the meaning of certain words which sometime were of doubtful and ambiguous signification were afterwards settled and determined such as was substantia persona 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And some new unscriptural words such as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were made choice of by the Fathers and put into their Creeds in order to detect the hypocrisy and Heresy of the Arians But this was not done till after many disputations and great deliberation and afterwards they thought themselves obliged to declare the necessity they were under of settling the sense of one word upon this important subject which was not a new word neither but such as had bin formerly used before they would impose it on the Church So weighty a thing was the faith and peace of the Church in the opinion of those great men in those days But tho they introduced some new words and settled the signification of others they never did attempt to alter and lay aside the use of any which had formerly bin of general usage and universally received among Christians in order to introduce new ones in the room of them On the other hand the Church hath condemned all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all new invented terms and hath forbid the introducing any such under the pain of deprivation or Anathematization And for this Decree of the 6th General Council the third of Constantinople the Church in succeeding ages hath preserved so great a veneration that none either Greek or Latin Roman or Reformed have ever since complained of the hardship of that Synodical sentence or have endeavored to reverse it But on the other hand they have declared a high displeasure against all such who have at any time attempted any such innovations As is evident from the fate that attended Abbot Joachim and Valentinus Gentilis the one in his book the other in his person All this the Dean had formerly bin put in mind of by the learned Animadverter and yet notwithstanding this monition he still persists in that presumtuous humor of using and defending these new unusual inconvenient forms of speech and which he himself allows may be liable to an Heretical meaning But 2dly Let it be granted that the Church may alter old phrases but hath she actually made use of that her Authority in the case before us Hath she published any declaration whereby she hath discovered her pleasure in this affair viz. that the old words such as those of persons Hypostasis subsistence should be laid aside to make room for self-consciousness and mutual consciousness Or that one nature one essence one substance must be discarded and in their place the phrases of three distinct minds spirits and substances should be introduced That maxime in Law is true here in Divinity eodem modo res solvitur quo ligatur The Church hath tyed us to the use of these words I pray who hath set us at liberty why he saith or at least intimates that the Church hath But what Church I beseech you why none that I know of except it be that which is included and which he carries about with him in his own person How comes he to be styled the Church That you must know is by a Synecdoche whereby the Dean of a Church may be called the Church it self Tho others may account it rather a Catachresis or vocis abusio when a word is abused being transferred from a proper to a very improper and absurd signification But sure the Dean cannot so far forget himself as to arrogate to himself the name of the Church He doth not that I know of indeed assume the name but he plainly doth the Authority of the Church And under her name and power he shelters himself For as was said before p. 16. he justifies his own innovations by saying that the Church always had and always will have Authority to use such words as she thinks most expressive of the faith How can this Apology vindicate him except either he be the Church or at least be commissioned by her and invested with her Authority I presume he will not pretend to be formally the Church either
between man and man which by this means or such meaning if you please is entirely destroyed By all that hath bin said upon this Head I think it will appear plain to every unprejudiced person that there was great reason to condemn the Propositions mentioned in the Decree which plainly overthrow the Unity of the Godhead and therefore are justly styled false and impious Of them it is farther affirmed in the Decree that they are contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and particularly to that received here in the Church of England And so they are as opposite to it as truth is to falshood and faith to infidelity It hath bin the belief and profession of all good Christians since the first planting of Christianity in the world that as there is but one God so there is but one nature and essence in the three persons of the Trinity of which they are all partakers This was upon a particular occasion Decreed in the Council of Nice confirmed afterwards by all the other General Councils and they who have opposed this determination have in all times heretofore bin adjudged and declared Hereticks For some time indeed the words Substance Person and Hypostasis were of ambiguous signification but that was afterwards settled and the Language of the Church ever since hath bin Three persons and but one Substance Nature Essence Divinity In this all the Fathers agree both Greek and Latin even St. Hilary who styles the Father Son and Holy Ghost three substances yet in the very same place where he is cited by the Examiner he explains himself and vindicates the Synod of Antioch and tells us p. 37. Tres substantias esse dixerunt subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes by three substances they meant three persons But as to the substance it self when placed in opposition to person he acknowledges that to be but one and that the Father and son unius recte ambo creduntur esse essentiae Again Credamus dicamus esse unum substantiam p. 39. and p. 40. Deus unus ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur Which the Examiner thus renders into English The Father who begets and the Son who is born are to be acknowledged one God upon the account of the same nature in both without the least difference or variation and therefore say I without the least distinction except the Dean can find out a distinction without a difference which I confess he hath done in some other cases before mentioned But this is his peculiar talent to find out that which no body before him ever dreamed of The like observation is to be made with relation to the Alexandrian Synod under Athanasius which one would think he would never have mentioned if he had not in a manner bin forsaken by his reason at the same time that he abandoned his Religion For nothing could have bin produced which is more apposite and pertinent to overthrow his new notion of three minds and substances For there happened a dispute between the Catholicks concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was meerly a contention about words when they all agreed in the same thing those who asserted three Hypostases thereby meaning three Persons but yet but one Godhead and one substance in the Trinity those who denied there were three Hypostases thought that by Hypostasis was meant substance and they dreaded nothing more than to affirm there were three substances in the Godhead Take it in the words of the Examiner p. 43. They owned but one Hypostasis or substance for they believed but one ' Divinity or Divine nature by reason of the Identity of nature between Father and Son And they having given their several Explications were all found to agree in the Catholick Faith and then afterwards three Hypostases and one nature was the Catholick Language Can any thing be more directly opposite to his notion than this Determination of the Synod One cannot but think he was Infatuated when he produced it But still he hath a shift in reserve to save himself and his three substances For in that same place he renders Hypostasis by substance and saith that when they said three Hypostases they meant it still in the notion of three substances A very false and perfidious suggestion making the Catholick Language as he himself acknowledges it wherein Catholicks expressed their consent in the same Faith to consist in a ridiculous contradiction For according to him when they said three Hypostases and one nature they meant three substances and one nature that is three substances and one substance three natures and one nature these being two words that signify but one and the same thing But the true Language of the Church was that there are three Persons truly and really distinct and yet but one nature essence substance And this doctrine hath bin constantly uniformly and without any alteration conveyed thro all the Ages of the Church to our days this being the Faith and these the words of all Christian Churches Greek and Latin Eastern and Western that are at this day in the World And particularly of our own Church who in the first Article of our Religion teaches us to profess that there is but one God and that in the Unity of this Godhead there are three Persons of one power substance and eternity And in our most solemn addresses to Heaven she directs us to make the same acknowledgment viz. upon Trinity Sunday and to give glory to God in these words Who art one God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one substance For that which we believe of the glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and holy Ghost without any difference or inequality And if there be not any difference in the substance there can be no distinction as was said before And now at length being quite tired with following this Examiner thro that maze and Labyrinth into which he commonly leads his Readers it is high time I should take leave of him after I have committed him to the mercy of God and his writings to the censure of the Church The former I hope he will partake of the latter perhaps he and they may escape tho he stands in great need of it especially since he so obstinately and pertinaciously persists in his errors after so plain a discovery and so clear a confutation of them But I cannot fairly part with him without enquiring into the reasons which induced him to publish this Paper wherein he treats the Governors of the University in so rude and insolent a manner falling foul upon persons whose Character Profession and Station he ought to have considered and from whom he never received the least personal injury or provocation that ever I could yet hear of Among other Reasons he hath suggested one in the last page of this Book which I shall only take notice of viz. That it was
consequently they must be three Gods to all intents and purposes when united as much as if they were separated But 2dly A specifical sameness of the Godhead is by no means to be allowed because it destroys the true and fundamental reason of that unity viz. the infinite perfection of the divine nature which renders it absolutely incapable of any multiplication and places it upon another weak and unstable foundation viz. the operation of the mind and understanding So that the unity of the Godhead according to ths hypothesis doth not result from the nature of God but is owing to and dependent upon the operation of some intellect drawing one common notion from the agreement which it observes in several individuals Which to affirm would certainly be both a monstrous and a Blasphemous assertion ss the Animadverter hath very judiciously observed p. 183. From all these observations I think it is as evident as any truth in nature that to assert three substances in the blessed Trinity is plainly to imply and in other words to affirm that there are three Gods which assertion therefore in the judgment not only of all true Christians but even of Jews and Mahometans and some sober Pagans would be accounted and adjudged false and impious as it is declared to be by the Oxford Censure But against this the Dean will urge in behalf of his three distinct substances the plurality and distinction of persons in the Trinity Are there not three Persons in the Godhead Yes Are not these three Persons three substantial Persons Yes we acknowledge they are Tho by the by this epithet of substantial when added to Person is superfluous and is no better than a plain tautology because the very notion of Person imports the perfection and complement of substance so that it receives no addition to its signification by the word substantial But to pass this by and proceed to his questions Are not three substantial persons three distinct substances I answer no. For these three persons have but one and the same substance or nature that is common to them all which nature hath three different ways of subsisting in the three persons From which different ways of subsisting as I said before do result distinct properties and relations belonging to each of those divine persons and which are incommunicable to the others All these questions so often and so impertinently proposed by the Dean are easily resolved by proposing the like questions in other words but such as are perfectly equipollent Are not the Persons in the Trinity three distinct Divine Persons Yes Is not every divine Person truly and properly God Yes Is it not then as plain that if there be three distinct divine Persons there must consequenty be three Gods I answer no. Because tho each of them distinctly is a divine Person and therefore God yet they have but one and the same Divinity or Godhead in common to them all so that they are distinguished only by their personalities but are united in one divine nature or Godhead And therefore as the Athanasian Creed tells us tho we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord yet we are forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are three Gods or three Lords Now of all this I would defire no greater or plainer acknowledgment than what I find in the writings of this examiner and particularly in the papers before us p. 18. he hath these words That there are three Persons and one God is the Catholick Language and therefore three belongs to the Persons and one to the Godhead This is right but in the words immediately succeeding he quite overturns the Catholick Faith and Language by saying That therefore whatever is essential to the notion of each Person may be numbred and distinguished with the Persons From hence he would have it follow as indeed it will if this be allowed that spirit and substance being included in the notion of a Person it must be multiplied with it so that as there are three Persons so there must be three spirits three substances in the Trinity Now this is extremely false for by the same way and for the same reason that there are three substances or three spirits there must be three Godheads He saith no adding that this will not affect the unity of the Godhead for three he saith belongs to the persons which are three not to the Godhead which is but one very right And must it not be said for the same reason that when we affirm that there are three substantial Persons three is to be applied to Persons and not to substance because substance when we speak of God being equipollent to Godhead as was said before is but one and therefore cannot be multiplied But cannot what is essential to the notion of a person be numbred and distinguished with the person No by no means for tho it may and must be so in finite persons it is not so when we speak of the divine infinite persons in the Trinity Because there is something in each of those persons which in common belongs to them all such is the divine nature substance Godhead which is so in each as to be whole and entire in all three and therefore tho residing in and applied to each person yet it may not it cannot be numbred or distinguished with the persons who are distinguished by their properties and relations which arise from three different ways manners of their subsistence but not by their substance and Godhead which is but one and the same in all three without division distinction or multiplication The same orthodox acknowledgment we have p. 21. tho tacked by him according to his usual method to an egregious contradiction There he saith that the divine nature is whole and entire in each divine Person and that infinite and infinite and infinite when applied to the Persons are but one and the same infinite nature Very right but then with the same breath in a manner he puffs all this away by telling us that each of the divine Persons is a distinct infinite mind and yet that these three infinite distinct minds can have but one and the same divine nature Which is a plain contradiction making one to be three and three one in one and the same respect And is no better than if he should say in three Gods there is but one and the same Godhead for infinite mind and spirit is but the same thing in other words with God as he himself elsewhere acknowledges Lastly to mention no more p. 29 30. He repeats the same orthodox expressions The Scripture-notion of the Unity of God is not such an Unity as is only in 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 one same divine nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the