the Censure which these Oxford Heads have made of these Propositions There are Three Infinite distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity Item That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits and Three Individual Substances That is I suppose as much Individual Substances as they are Individual Persons It is evident that all this relates only to the Notion of the Trinity and to the Notion of a Divine Person and of Three Divine Persons in the Trinity and therefore the Unity of the Godhead is not concerned in this which belongs to another Question How these Three are One of which more when I examine the Heresy charged on these words 1. But the first charge is that they are false I wish they had told us what in them is false but since they have made no distinction we must suppose they mean that all these words are false Is it false then that each Person in the Ever-Blessed Trinity is by himself in his own Person a Distinct Infinite Mind Spirit or Substance Is not God the Father an Infinite Mind or Spirit Is not God the Son the substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father an Infinite Mind or Spirit Is not God the Holy Ghost that Eternal Spirit which knoweth the things of God as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the things of a man an Eternal Mind or Spirit Or is not an Infinite Mind and Spirit a Substance the most real perfect Substance that is in the world which gives Substance and Subsistence to all other things Is not the Father considered as an Infinite Mind and Spirit distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost the Son distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost distinct from the Father and the Son To deny any thing of all this is downright Sabellianism and destroys a real substantial Trinity which is as Essential to the Christian Faith as the Unity of the Godhead is The only Quarrel then that I can imagine against these words is this That tho the Father be a distinct Infinite Mind and the Son a distinct Infinite Mind and the Holy Ghost a distinct Infinite Mind yet according to the Catholick Form of Speech we must not say that there are Three distinct Infinite Minds but one Infinite Mind or Spirit or Substance Now I grant that in the sense of the Homoousion or Consubstantiality this is very True and Orthodox in which sense St. Jerom condemned Tres Substantias or Three Substances and St. Austin who allowed that the Father is a Spirit the Son a Spirit and the Holy Ghost a Spirit yet denied that there are Three Spirits but One Spirit but when we apply this to Persons it is gross Sabellianism to say that there are not Three Personal Minds or Spirits or Substances but only One Mind Spirit or Substance for then there can be but one Person too for one Personal Mind is but One Person Let us consider what a Mind is and how we can know whether there be but One or more distinct Minds The Substance of a Mind I know nothing of no more than I do what the naked Substance of Body or Matter is but the true Notion of a Mind is a thinking Being and therefore where ever we find the Acts of Knowledge Understanding and Will there is a Mind and where there are distinct Personal Acts of Knowledge and Will there are distinct Personal Minds Now if we believe the Scripture the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father the Father wills and the Son by a distinct Personal act wills with the Father and what the Father wills the Father works and the Son works and sees all that the Father doth and doth the same things Thus the Fathers proved against the Sabellians the real and substantial distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead from those distinct personal acts which are attributed in Scripture to Father Son and Holy Ghost which having a mutual relation to each other require distinct Persons for their Subjects and since all the instances they give as may be seen in Tertullian against Praxeas Novatian in his Book of the Trinity Athanasius against the Sabellians St. Hilary St Austin and all that have writ on this Argument are acts of a Mind as well as of a Person they must prove if they prove any thing distinct Minds as well as Persons for if one singular Solitary Mind may be the Subject of such distinct acts as necessarily suppose more than one One Person may be so too and then there is no possible way left to confute Sabellianism or to prove a real Trinity of distinct substantial Persons It is very evident that both the Sabellians and the Catholick Fathers in this Controversy understood the same thing by Person which we do by Mind or Spirit By Person the Sabellians meant such a Person as is true and perfect God and therefore the most real Substance an Infinite Mind and Spirit and for this reason they rejected Three Persons for fear of Three Gods which always was and is still the Objection against a real substantial Trinity for there is no danger that Three Names or Notions or Modes should be a Trinity of Gods Notwithstanding this the Catholick Fathers allow their Notion of a Person and prove against them such a Trinity of Persons as they rejected each of which is true and perfect God Now since Person is the Catholick word which long Ecclesiastical use has made familiar I should by no means allow of any other word in this Mystery could we retain the old Catholick Faith together with the word But when men make no more of a Person than a meer Mode and a Trinity of Modes in one singular Nature and Substance must pass for a Trinity of Divine Persons which was the Heresy of Sabellius who contended for One Singular Solitary Nature or Subsistence in God and was not much concerned by what name you called the Three so they were not Three Substantial Subsisting Persons for he never dreamt that there could be Three Real Substantial Persons in One Singular Nature I say when this Heresy is reviv'd under a new Name we are under a necessity of saying in more express words what the Fathers meant by Person if we will retain the Catholick Faith as well as the Word Would Men but give themselves a little Liberty of thinking they would see how impossible it is to find a Medium between a real Trinity and Sabellianism however disguis'd The Three Persons in the blessed Trinity are either Three Substantial Persons or they are not to deny them to be Substantial is Sabellianism whatever else we call them There must be either One singular solitary Substance in the Deity or Three distinct Personal Substances The first is the fundamental Article of the Sabellian Creed and a direct Contradiction to the Doctrine of the Trinity for One singular solitary Nature or Substance is but One Person for which reason the
did not stint themselves in the Number of their Gods they were Polytheists not Tritheists even the Platonists themselves though they own'd a Trinity a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one Divinity which extended it self to Three which was essentially distinguish'd from all created Nature and from all their Creature Gods but they worshipped many Gods besides as the rest of the Pagan World did Tritheism was never charg'd upon any Men but the Worshippers of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity and it was charg'd upon them from the beginning by Pagans and Hereticks The fear of this made Noetus and Sabellius deny three real substantial Persons in the Trinity and made Arius deny the true eternal Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit But the Catholick Fathers despis'd this Charge and owned three distinct real substantial Persons each of them by himself to be true and perfect God but not Three Gods but One God For thus the Scripture had taught them to believe and speak that there is but One God and there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost who have all the Perfections of the Deity distinctly in themselves So that this Tritheism is a Christian Heresie if it be one and was never charged upon Christians by Christians for several Ages but only by Hereticks The most Orthodox Christians were always most charg'd with it and some to avoid this Charge turn'd Hereticks and were condemn'd for such by the Catholick Church It is true in the declining Monkish Ages of the Church we sometimes hear of these Tritheists but it is a very dark part of Story and I never cou'd find a satisfactory Account what their Opinions were or why they were call'd so It is not improbable but that they might fall into the Hands of some malicious Animadverter who by Zeal and Faction might procure a new Name and Heresie to be decreed them for there is no new thing under the Sun But this has made me apt to suspect that those who have been charg'd with Tritheism for professing the Faith and Worship of the ever blessed Trinity have been the most Orthodox Believers and that those who have so minc'd the Matter as to escape the Charge of Tritheism from Hereticks have been Hereticks themselves A real substantial Trinity in which each Person is by himself perfect God has always been charged by Hereticks with Tritheism for Three each of whom is true and perfect God they say are Three Gods and yet this is the true Christian Trinity But though Men may laugh at a Trinity of Modes you shall never hear them charge it with Tritheism and what Hereticks who own but one personal God cannot charge with Tritheism is no Christian Trinity that is has not Three Persons each of which is true and perfect God So far are those Gentlemen mistaken who think it a piece of Art and Prudence to avoid all Expressions which Hereticks charge with Tritheism for then they must renounce all Words which contain and express the ture Catholick Faith At least I think this should warn all Men who are not disguis'd Atheists and Infidels under the profession of Christianity to have a care of ridiculing Father Son and Holy Ghost to be reveng'd of these Tritheist Hereticks as the Animadverter profanely does who so often scoffs at me for my Three Gods who never own'd any other God than Father Son and Holy Ghost and pities the Socinians as an unequal Match for me because they have but One God and I have Three nay compares Father Son and Holy Ghost to Pagan Gods when he tells the World that I curse him by my Gods which is a manifest and impious Allusion to Goliath's cursing David by his Gods Can he think that the Dispute about Three Modes or Three Minds in the Unity of the Godhead can justifie such Blasphemies as these against Father Son and Holy Ghost or is this to be suffered in a Christian Church Whether I curse him or not and I thank God I curse no Man but pray for my worst Enemies he may justly fear that such Blasphemies will bring the Curse of the ever Blessed Trinity on him and that will be no Jeast No Man who believes but One Divine Nature which is originally in the Father and is substantially communicated by the Father to the Son as a distinct subsisting Person by an eternal and ineffable Generation and to the Holy Ghost by an eternal and substantial Procession from Father and Son can be a Tritheist whatever inconvenient Expressions he may use unless the Doctrine of the Trinity it self be Tritheism But let us consider the reason of this Charge a little more particularly They ask us Whether an eternal and infinite Mind be not ture and perfect God Yes most certainly and for this reason we must assert that the Son is an eternal infinite Mind because he is true and perfect God But if one infinite Mind is true and perfect God are not Three infinite Minds Three Gods This is easily answer'd as far as we are concern'd to answer these Men only by changing Minds for Persons Is not an eternal infinite Person true and perfect God and if every eternal Person as a distinct Person be true and perfect God are not Three such distinct Persons Three Gods The Objection is the same and let them but answer for themselves and they answer for us But if each distinct Person and each distinct Mind is true and perfect God why may not the Term God be number'd and distinguish'd as Persons and Minds are Why may we not say that there are Three Gods as well as that there are Three Persons or Three Minds This is the true Difficulty which as much affects the Doctrine of the Trinity it self as any Terms or Expressions about it whether Three Persons or Three Minds Nay though we give no Name to these Three the Difficulty is the same for if we own Three each of whom is true and perfect God why are not these Three three Gods when each of them is distinctly and by himself true and perfect God Now not to dispute this Matter with the Socinians which is not my present Business there is a very plain Account to be given of this to those who acknowledge a Trinity why we may say that there are Three infinite Minds and Spirits each of which is true and perfect God and yet must not and ought not to say that there are Three Gods The Reason why we may say that there are Three distinct infinite Minds is because there are Three each of whom is a distinct infinite Mind and Three each of whom is a distinct Mind are Three distinct Minds but the Reason why we must not say there are Three Gods is not because there are not Three each of whom is distinctly and by himself true and perfect God as every infinite Mind is for that is Sabellianism but because there is but one and the same Divinity or Godhead the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them all and
distinguish as subtilly as they please an Intelligent Person is a Mind and a Substantial Person is a Substance and Three are Three of which more presently There may indeed be a very Heretical Sense put upon these words to say That there are Three Infinite Minds or Persons for the Heresy is the same whatever the word be wholly divided and separated from each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Absolute Principlees Independent on each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Unbegotten ones without any relation to each other as Father Son and Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Three Substances in the Arian Notion for Three distinct Kinds and Species of Substance or Three Natures and Essences specifically different All this I say is False Impious and Heretical and has been condemned as such by the Catholick Church And could they have affix'd any such Sense as this on the Preacher's Words they would have done well to have shewn it and then they had done very justly and religiously in condemning such an Impious Sense of these Words but to condemn Words in themselves very Orthodox as Impious and Heretical without giving the least Intimation wherein their Impiety and Heresy consists is a new way of proceeding which they never learnt from any of the Ancient Councils But Party Shibboleths always do the best Execution the less they are understood The Charge is drawn up as fully and emphatically as it is possible 1. That these aforesaid Words are False 2. That they are Impious 3. Heretical 4. Contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church And 5. In particular contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as publickly received This they Judge Declare and Determine and had they Proved it too they had done all at once but now the hardest part still remains and men who will not take their bare word for it will judge all over again And I hope it will give no Offence to that Great and Learned Body of the University of Oxford to examine the rash and hasty Judgment of some of the Heads of their Colleges and Halls In order to this I shall briefly premise some few plain Observations the more effectually to shew the Rashness and Injudiciousness of this Decree As 1. That no form of words is to be condemned as False Impious and Heretical which do not necessarily and manifestly contain a False Impious and Heretical Sense Words may be new unusual inconvenient and want the stamp of Ecclesiastical Authority which are not False Impious or Heretical These are very different Crimes to broach new Words and new Heresies when the Words themselves are not manifestly Heretical And certainly such men ought to have understood this who take upon them to be Judges of Heresy Nay 2dly Such new forms of speech as are liable to an Heretical sense are not therefore to be rejected if they are of use to secure the True Catholick Faith and those who use them declare the Orthodox sense wherein they use them All learned men know that the Homoousion it self was charged with as many Heresies as any other word can well be Some charged it with Sabellianism others with a division and partition of the Divine Substance as if the Son 's being begotten of his Father's Substance and so being Consubstantial or of one Substance with him signified such an Efflux and Emanation as divided the Father's Substance and communicated part of it to the Son But when the Catholick Fathers rejected these perverse and Heretical senses of the word and declared in what sense they used it in opposition to the Arian Heresy and that it was the most significant word which could be used to that purpose and which those subtle Hereticks who equivocated in all other forms of words could by no means elude the Nicene Council received it into their Creed and Eusebius of Caesarea and some others who at first scrupled the use of that word subscribed to it when they were satisfied of its Orthodox signification It is reasonable for all men to consider this who pretend to find Heresy in words Whether those who use them own that Heretical sense which they charge upon them for otherwise they may as well condemn the Homoousion as False Impious and Heretical as Three distinct Infinite Minds and Spirits if they have no regard to the sense of those who use these words nor to the end for which they are used 3. And if we will ever allow of Unscriptural Words to explain and secure the Catholick Faith which none but secret or open Hereticks ever quarrel'd at there may be the same reason and necessity for it in our Age that ever there was in any Age of the Christian Church and then it is as justifiable now as ever it was The Church never had Authority to make a new Faith but 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 This Apology the Nicene Fathers made for putting the Homoousion into their Creed as St. Athanasius declares at large in his Book de decretis Synodi Nicaenae The Arians made a shift to reconcile their Heresy to all other Forms of words by the Homoousion detected their Hypocrisy and Heresy This was too plain and express to be evaded by equivocal senses and therefore they could never be reconciled to it and the Catholick Fathers thought that a very necessary reason for the use of it Now if such expressions as these Three distinct Infinite Minds and Spirits or Three Substances be as necessary in our Age to detect and oppose Sabellianism and to secure the Catholick Faith of a Real Substantial Trinity which is all that is intended by them as the Homoousion was at the time of the Nicene Council to detect and oppose Arianism this will justify the use of such expressions how novel soever they may be thought and what necessity there is for this in our Age will appear presently 4. It is a sufficient justification of any Unscriptural Forms of words in Articles of Faith that though the express words are not found in Scripture yet all that is and that is intended to be signified by those words is found in Scripture for no words can be false impious and heretical which contain the true Catholick Faith as taught in Scripture Thus Athanasius and the other Nicene Fathers answer that Arian Objection against the Homoousion that it is not to be found in Scripture that though the word is not in Scripture the Faith signified by that word is and thus St. Augustine particularly defends it in his dispute with Pascentius 5. No Expressions can be said to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church which have been used by Catholick Fathers either in the same or in equivalent terms and contain that Doctrine which the Catholick Fathers always taught Having premised this let us now examine
the Three Divine Persons of the ever Blessed Trinity when each of them is and is owned to be a distinct infinite Mind think themselves reproach'd to be call'd Three and if the Divine Persons will not think themselves blasphem'd by this there is no danger that the Divine Nature should For the Divine Nature is whole and entire in each Divine Person and there is no danger but three distinct infinite Minds must have the same One Divine Nature for Infinite Infinite and Infinite are but one and the same Infinite Nature But as I take it the danger of Blasphemy is on the other side for if they deny the Three Persons of the Trinity to be three distinct infinite Minds which of these Divine Persons Father Son or Holy Ghost will they deny to be an Infinite Mind for when we know him we must strike him out of the Trinity as not being true and perfect God Or if they allow Person to signifie the same thing when applied to the Father to the Son or to the Holy Ghost then neither of these Persons is a Divine Infinite Mind or each of them is and then there are three as there are three Persons or there is never a Divine Infinite Mind among them all the Consequence of which is so blasphemous that I know not whether I may venture to say it for fear the Animadverter should serve me as he has done once already to make these Consequences my own Doctrine But yet I will tell these Gentlemen what a bolder man than I am would venture to say upon this occasion that if a Divine Person as a Person and as distinct from the other Persons be not an Infinite Mind there is an end of the Christian Trinity in which every Person is true and perfect God which no Person is who is not an Infinite Mind and therefore if any one Person considered in his distinct personal Capacity be not an Infinite Mind he does not belong to the Christian Trinity and if all the Persons are in this respect alike that not any one of them in his distinct Personal Capacity is a distinct Infinite Mind then there is no Trinity at all and if they will find a God when they have renounced a Trinity it must be one singular Divine Nature which they themselves will not allow to be a Person And thus we have lost a Trinity and lost a God who is a Person This is plain sence and I fear neither Thomas nor Scotus can help them out But let us suppose and I am sure they ought to be thankful for such a Supposition for their Notion of a Person will not admit it unless they understand one thing by a Person when apply'd to the Father and another when apply'd to the Son and Holy Spirit but I say let us suppose that the Divine Nature is originally in the Person of the Father or that the Father is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbegotten self originated God as he certainly is and therefore a Divine substantial Person who is essentially God Now the very Name of Father is a relative Term and signifies that he has a Son begotten of himself and let any Man consider which sounds most like Blasphemy both against the Father and the Son to say that the Father begets a Son who is his own perfect Likeness and Image the express Character of his own Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with himself but distinct in Substance as Father and Son are true and perfect God as his Father is without any other the least difference but that one is the Father and the other the Son or to say that the Father begets no Substance at all but only a Mode or a Relation without a Relative in his own Substance That the Father begets Filiation not a Son but Sonship is not this to ridicule the Divine Generation and to make Sport for Atheists and Hereticks If God begets no Substance he begets nothing real nothing substantially distinct from himself and therefore no substantial Person and then neither God is a true and real Father nor the Son a real Son which overthrows the whole Mystery of our Redemption by the Incarnation Death and Sufferings of the Son of God For God was not incarnate if the Divine Nature was not incarnate And if there be but one singular divine Nature and Substance in the Deity though they could find a Trinity of Persons in this one singular Nature the Incarnation of this one singular Nature is impossible without the Incarnation of the whole Trinity Men may wrangle as long as they please about these Matters but it is a manifest Contradiction to say That the Divine Nature is incarnate in the Son and is not incarnate in the Father and the Holy Ghost when there is but one singular Divine Nature and Substance in them all which is to say that the same one singular Nature is incarnate and is not incarnate and is and is not is a Contradiction or there never can be a Contradiction And now I leave it to all impartial Judges on which side the Impiety lies 3. The third Charge is Heresie But if it be neither false nor impious I hope there is no Heresie in it neither However they would have done well to have given this Heresie a Name that we might have known where to find it who were the first Authors of it in what Age of the Church it began and by what General Councils it was condemn'd For I can find no Heresie in these censur'd Words but the Heresie of a real substantial Trinity the Heresie of three substantial Persons or of three Personal Minds and Substances and I do not find any mention of this Heresie in the ancient Records of the Church unless those who called themselves Catholicks were these Hereticks for this was always their Doctrine as some of our Modern Orthodox Zealots and Heresie-makers confess and know not how to excuse them from Heresie upon this account Well! if this be the Case we must be contented to be Hereticks with all the ancient Fathers and the four first General Councils but these Gentlemen should have remembred that the Church of England requires them to expound Scripture as the ancient Catholick Doctors expound it and receives the four first General Councils where this Heresie is in great Perfection and it had not been amis if some body had minded them that the Laws of England as I observ'd before forbid the declaring any Doctrine to be Heresie which is not condemn'd for Heresie in the four first General Councils But let Fathers and Councils Canons or Acts of Parliament say what they please they have a greater and more venerable Authority than all of them The Animadverter has told them it is Heresie and has told them what Heresie it is no less than the Heresie of Tritheism Now I confess I am much to seek what this Heresie of Tritheism is It is not Paganism for the Heathens