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 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
Sabellians so earnestly contended for it and the Catholick Fathers so vigorously oppos'd it And if we own Three distinct substantial Persons in the Trinity we must own Three distinct personal Substances for a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person that though the Father and the Son are of one Substance as the Son is begotten of the Substance of the Father and consubstantial with him yet the personal Substance of the Son is no more the personal Substance of the Father than the Father is the Person of the Son or the Son the Person of the Father and therefore there is a manifest Sabellian Fallacy in it which it is impossible to make sense of to say That the Father is an infinite Mind the Son an infinite Mind and the Holy Ghost an infinite Mind that the Father is Substance the Son Substance the Holy Ghost Substance and yet that there are not Three personal Minds or Three personal Substances but One singular Mind and Substance for this is to be One and Three in the same Sense which is not Mystery but Contradiction There has been a nice Dispute about the singular and plural Predication when we speak of God that since in the Unity of the Godhead there are Three and One what it is we may call Three and what One This is the whole Pretence as far as I can guess for the Oxford Censure that Minds and Substances are spoke of in the plural Number Now this seems to me to be a very plain Case that if in the ever Blessed Trinity there be Three and One that wherein they are Three may be said to be Three but that wherein they are but One must be said to be but One for otherwise Three are not Three nor One One which must either destroy the Faith of the Trinity or of the Vnity That there are Three Persons and One God is the Catholick Language and therefore Three belongs to the Persons and One to the Godhead And therefore whatever is absolutely Essential to the Notion of a distinct Person may be number'd and distinguish'd with the Persons for whatever is included in the Notion of a Person though it be number'd with the Persons no more affects the Unity of the Godhead than a Trinity of Persons does If then a Person be a Mind a Spirit a Substance Three such Persons must be Three as distinct Minds Spirits or Substances as they are distinct Fersons and Three such Personal Minds Spirits or Substances are as reconcileable with the Unity of the Godhead as Three substantial Persons for the Three belongs to the Persons who are Three not to the Godhead which is but One of which more presently As for that Phrase of Three individual Substances it seems more obnoxious because individual may signifie and does in common use more than barely distinct even a separate Substance as all other individuals are and an Individual carries with it a Relation to a Species and though the ancient Fathers do indeed mention frequently a specifick Unity of Nature in the Godhead they did not confine the Unity of the Divine Nature to this which is a meer Logical and Notional Unity The Divine Nature is no Species for it is but One and therefore the Unity of the Godhead is the most real essential indivisible inseparable Unity But how incautious soever the Expression is the Preacher seems to have had no ill meaning in it and therefore this might have been corrected but not so heavily censur'd especially since Boethius his Definition of a Person might have led him to it rationabilis naturae individua substantia the individual Substance of a rational Nature And if this may be allow'd a good Definition of a Divine Person whatever belongs to the Definition of a Person may be number'd and distinguished with the Persons 2. Thus much for the first Charge that these Words are false the next is much heavier That they are impious Now there are but two things wherein the impiety of any Doctrine can consist either in teaching some Wickedness or in reproaching and blaspheming the Deity Now what Wickedness does this Doctrine of a real substantial Trinity a Trinity of Three infinite personal Minds teach us unless to worship Father Son and Holy Ghost with the most humble and devout Adorations be impiety This indeed it does teach us and this we do and this no other Notion of a Trinity can teach us or justifie us in doing For is any other Trinity but a real substantial Trinity the Object of a religious Adoration can we without impiety distinctly worship as we do in our Litany three distinct Persons who are not each of them distinctly in their own Persons infinite Mind and Spirit is a Mode a Posture a Somewhat without any name or notion belonging to it the Object of Religious Worship is it possible in the nature of the thing for any man who believes but one singular solitary divine Nature to worship three with a distinct worship without any conception of a real substantial distinction between them Can any man honour the Son as he honours the Father as a distinct Object and with distinct acts of worship who does not believe the Son to be as truly and substantially a Divine Person as the Father is and as distinct a Person from the Father as Adam and Abel were distinct Persons tho not separate Persons as they were Men may please themselves with subtil distinctions but they can never distinguish themselves nor others out of their sense and feeling and I appeal to all Mankind whether distinct Acts of worship do not require distinct Objects as really distinct as their Worship is whether they can distinctly worship three Names or Modes or Somewhats when there is but one real substantial Subject or Suppositum of them all if they can their Devotion is as airy subtil and unintelligible as their Distinctions are Does this Doctrine then of a real substantial Trinity of three infinite Personal Minds reproach or blaspheme the Deity I do not now dispute with the Antitrinitarian Hereticks who are professedly so who charge the Doctrine it self with Blasphemy but with those who profess to believe a Trinity but charge the Doctrine of a real substantial Trinity with impiety and therefore shall confine my self only to them Is it any Reproach then to the Ever Blessed Trinity to affirm that each Person is by himself a distinct infinite Mind is an infinite Mind then a Term of Reproach and Blasphemy does not an infinite Mind signifie all the Perfections of a Deity and is this Blasphemy I beseech you against whom against Father Son or Holy Ghost and is not each of these Divine Persons a distinct infinite Mind or is it Blasphemy to say what they are or when each of these Divine Persons is a distinct infinite Mind is it Blasphemy to say that three Divine Persons are three distinct infinite Minds that is will
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
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
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
genuinely and inseparably of the same Nature with Father and Son All this was approved of as very Orthodox And then the Synod examined those who affirmed That there was but One Substance in the Trinity What they meant by it Whether they understood it as Sabellius did to deny the Real Subsistence of the Son and Holy Spirit to make an Unsubstantial Son and an Unsubsisting Spirit This they also denied and told the Synod that they thought Hypostasis signified the same with Ousia Essence Substance Nature And therefore they owned but one Hypostasis or Substance because the Son is of the Substance of the Father and by reason of the Identity of Nature between Father and Son for they believed but One Divinity and one Divine Nature and not one Nature of the Father and another different Nature of the Son and of the Holy Spirit This Explication also was approved by the Synod and thus this matter was reconciled Those who taught Three Substances in the Trinity and those who believed but one Substance when they had given their several Explications were both owned by the Synod and owned each other for Catholick Christians and both Condemned Arius and Sabellius though the Synod thought it better to adhere strictly to the words of the Nicene Creed but soon after they distinguished between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then Three Hypostases still in the notion of Three Substances and One Nature was the Catholick Language which St. Basil gives a large account of Ep. 300. of which more elsewhere So that Athanasius and those Glorious Confessors for the Nicene Faith in the Alexandrian Synod owned Three Substances in the very same sense in which we now use those words to contain the true Catholick Faith and if they knew what the Doctrine of the Catholick Church was our Oxford Heads are out in their guess 5. The last Charge is That Three distinct Minas and Substances is especially contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England publickly received What they may mean by publickly received I can't tell there may be some Doctrines too publickly received in the Church of England which are not the Doctrines of the Church and I doubt Sabellianism is one of them But if they mean by publickly received the Doctrine of our Articles and Creeds this is the very same with the Doctrine of the Catholick Church We make profession of the Nicene Faith every Week and that asserts a Real and Substantial Trinity if Athanasius understood it The only pretence I can guess they had for this charge if they thought of any themselves must be the Form of the Athanasian Creed which will not permit us to say that in the Plural Number of all Three Divine Persons which it allows us to attribute distinctly to each distinct Person in the Singular Number we may say the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty but must not say that there are three Almighties but one Almighty But will they hence frame an Universal Rule That nothing must be said of the Holy Trinity in the Plural Number considered as Three We will not attribute any thing to the Holy Trinity in the Plural Number which this Creed forbids we will not say there are Three Almighties Three Eternals Three Omnipotents Three Infinites Three Gods or Three Lords but this Creed does not forbid us saying There are Three Minds or Three Substances nay it teaches us to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as you have already heard in the Language of the Nicene Age and more expresly in After Ages signified Three Substances and therefore must do so in this Creed The reason given in the Creed against this Plural Praedication is Because there is but One God and therefore such terms as immediately and directly multiply the Deity and Godhead must not be exprest Plurally and thus the Plural Praedication of any Divine Perfections in the abstract does Three Omnipotents Three Infinites Three Eternals which are Equivalent to Three Omnipotencies Three Infinities Three Eternities and they to Three Deities and Three Godheads or Three Divine Natures but though we cannot distinguish between the Person and the Divinity or Divine Nature of that Person for there is no Composition in God or in a Divine Person as there is in Creatures yet when the same Divine Nature communicated from the Father to the Son and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit subsists distinctly tho inseparably whole and entire in Three and that which really and actually subsists is Mind and Substance with respect to these Three Subsistencies they are and must be Three Minds and Substances though with respect to the sameness and identity of the Divine Nature which is Whole and Entire and Inseparable and therefore but One in all they are but One not Three Gods This is all the sense I can make of that known distinction between Substantives and Adjectives in a Plural Praedication That we may say there are Three who Create but not Three Creators Three who are Omnipotent but not three Omnipotents c. that in these Adjective Praedications we consider the Divine Person Mind or Substance as a subject of Jahaesion and these Divine Perfections as Essential Properties or Attributes which may and must be numbred with the Subjects in which they are but Substantives have a more absolute sense and include pure nature without relation to different Subjects and therefore to use them Plurally is to multiply Nature to make more than One Infinite Eternal Incomprehensible Omnipotent Nature and consequently to multiply Gods But from this very distinction we learn that there are Three Suppositums or Subjects and then they will easily be owned to be Three Minds and Substances to which all the Perfections of the Deity belong for when these Divine Perfections are Praedicated Adjectively they must suppose a Subject to which they belong and they being such Perfections as can be only in a Mind they must suppose Three distinct Minds to which they belong Thus I have considered with all possible brevity every particular of this Charge and if these Decreeing and Heresy-making Heads will be just to me they must own that as they and the Animadverter had ordered the matter it was impossible for me to do otherwise unless I would have been trampled on by every Scribler This is a good human reason but I had a better reason for this than any thing meerly Personal They have condemned the true Catholick Faith even the Nicene Faith which is the Faith of the Church of England for Herefy and they have exposed this Faith to the Scorn and Triumph of the Socinian Hereticks who already make their boast That they have a Decree against the real Trinit arians and they only want another against the Nominal ones and then their work is done to their hands tho I think they have Decrees enow against them even all the Fathers and Councils which condemned Sabellius condemned them
Convocation is indeed Decretum Oxoniense or a Decree of the University of Oxford This is what the Animadverter called for and this he would persuade the world he has but let the Oxford Convocation look to this which may prove an ill President But I am inform'd for I confess I know not their Statutes my self that this Decree of the Heads of Colleges and Halls is so far from being the Decree of the Vniversity of Oxford that it is no Judicial nor Authoritative Decree at all not so much as for censuring a Preacher much less for declaring and decreeing Heresy Their Statutes refer such Censures to the Vice-Chancellor and Six Heads Doctors of Divinity and to one or both the Professors of Divinity but give no such Authority to the General Meeting of the Heads much less to Heads who are no Divines nor Doctors in Divinity and some such there were in this Meeting So that this pretended Decree of the Vniversity of Oxford is no more than the private Opinions of some Heads and if that be so Venerable an Authority I will undertake any day in the Year to procure a Meeting of twice as many as Wise and Learned Men to censure their Decree But supposing their Authority to be Just and Regular there is another very proper Question How far their Authority extends Whether to the declaring and decreeing Heresy Whatever the Convocation of the University may challenge this was never before pretended to by the Heads of Colleges and Halls All the Authority I can learn their Statutes give them in such Cases is to summon the Preacher who has said any thing in his Sermon contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England and to require a publick recantation from him or to forbid him ever to preach again in the Vniversity Whereas nothing of all this was done the Preacher not summoned to this Meeting nor his Name as far as I can learn once mentioned in it no Recantation enjoined no Prohibition of his Preaching again But instead of this which was their proper Business they declare and decree Heresy which so many Masters of Arts might have done with as good Authority where ever they had met And they ought notwithstanding all their Zeal against Heresy to have advised with men of Skill how far such an Irregular and Unstatutable proceeding might affect them The Authority of declaring and making Heresy may be of such pernicious Consequence to the Peace of any Church that it is not fit to be intrusted with any Body of men less then a National Synod for otherwise we may have as many different and contrary Religions as there are Declarers and Decreers of Heresy In the Statute 1 Eliz. ca. 1. we find the power to order determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy restrained only to such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures Or by the first Four General Councils Or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures Or such as hereafter shall be ordered judged or determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm with the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation And if the King could not grant a greater Authority than this to his High Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Affairs it is not likely that any other Body of men have it and my Lord Cook says That this is a direction to others especially to Bishops in their adjudgng Heresy 3 Instit. pa. 40. and how they have observed this Law in their Decree they had best consider Oxford Reasons have formerly had a very just Veneration paid to them and will have so still whenever they are penned with the same strength and clearness but they have a greater Opinion of their Authority than I can find the rest of the world has if they think by a meer Decree without pretending to give the least reason for it to silence all disputes and to bear down all Reasons and all Authorities on the other side But since these Heads are pleased to take part in the quarrel which one would have thought they need not have done had they not suspected the Success of their Animadverting Champion I accept this exchange with all thankfulness As for the Animadverter he might for me have writ on as long as he pleased and have railed and triumphed as much as he pleased and the world might have judged of him and his performances as they pleased His last Book I have read nothing of and could never persuade my self to read all his first Book there is such an Evil Spirit and such Venom in his Writings as is enough to give an Unchristian Tincture to those who read them He resolved never to answer any one but my self and I resolved never to read what he writ and thus there was some hope to see an end of this matter when he grew weary of writing or his Bookseller of Printing But now I hope to meet with no new Animadverters who shall all fare alike with me but with Men of Ingenuity and Candor good Learning and good Tempers who will reason without Sophistry and Misrepresentations weigh Authorities in an equal Balance and contend for Truth not for Victory and then it is indifferent to me whether I overcome or am overcome for Truth is better than Victory and will make an Honest Man triumph in being conquered Having thus considered the Authority of this Decree which the Animadverter so much glories in let us now examine the Decree it self These words Three distinct Infinite Minds and Three Substances as applied to the Three Persons of the Ever-Blessed Trinity are singled out in this Decree and parted from the Body of the Sermon without any thing to explain in what sense the Preacher used them and therefore we must conclude that these Words are absolutely condemned as False Impious and Heretical That though a Mind in this place signifies an Intelligent Person and Substance a Substantial Person and Three Infinite Intelligent Persons and Three Infinite Substantial Persons is the Catholick Faith as I doubt not to make appear yet Three Distinct Infinite Minds and Three Substances when they are used in no other sense than for three Intelligent and Substantial Persons must be condemned as Impious and Heretical These are wonderful nice Criticks to make the same Doctrine owned and acknowledged to be the same in one Form of Words to be truly Catholick and Orthodox and in another Form of Words which do and are intended to signify the same thing False Impious and Heretical This is a strange Magical Power of Words Hoc est Corpus in the mouth of a Popish Priest never were pretended to make a more Miraculous Transubstantiation I wish it at last appear that these Gentlemen do really believe Three Infinite Intelligent Persons and Three Substantial Persons in the Trinity for let them
and if all this be not enough the common Sense of Mankind of which every Plowman is a judge condemns them For Three Persons who are not Three distinct Minds and Substances is not greater Herefy than it is Nonsense In short we have had these Gentlemen's Decree and now we expect their Reasons which it had been much better they had thought of first and then we should have escaped their Decree FINIS Judicant declarant decernunt praedicta verba esse falsa impia heretica dissona contraria doctrinae Ecclesiae Catholicae speciatim doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae publice receptae * Quod vita in patre hic intelligitur substantia significata vita quoque in Unigenito quae ex patre generata est èssentia intellecta quod enim in utroque vita est id in utroque significatur essentia vita quae generatur ex vita id est essentia quae de essentia nascitur natae gignentis essentiae id est vitae quae habetur data est †Quia omnis nativitas quaecunque est in naturam suam ex naturâ gignente consistit ‖ Ex natura enim generante naturam sumpsit genita natura * sed quia Dei filius non corporalis partitudinis est genitus exemplo sed ex perfecto Deo perfectus Deus natus est idcirco ait creatam se esse sapientia omnes in generatione sua corporales passiones excludens at verò ut ostenderet non creationis in se sed nativitatis naturam esse subjecit genitam ut cùm creatam se genitam confitetur absolutam nativitatis suae intelligentiam praestaret dum indemutabilem patris naturam in creatione significat legitimam propriam ex Deo patre genitae suae naturae ostendit esse substantiam * Et siquis intemporalem unigeniâ—i filii de patre substantiam ad innascibilem Dei essentiam referat quasi filium patrem dicens anathema sit †Dedisse superior definicio occasionem haeretiâ—is videbatur cùm tempus nativitatis filii negaretur quia nefâ—s esset si pater esset in tempore in tempore autem esset si filius tempori subderetur ut per hanc opportunitatem temporis abnegati sub filii nuncupatione pater qui innascibilis esset singularis atque unicus ipse sibi pater filius praedicaretur quia ubi nascendi tempus excluditur illic opinio videtur innascibilitatis admitti ut natus non putetur cujus nativitas non sit in tempore Idcirco ne per hanc occasionem temporis abnegati haeresis unionis irreperet haec impietas damnatur quae audeat intemporalem nativitatem ad unicam singularem innascibilis essentiae referre substantiam cùm aliud sit intemporalem esse aliud sit esse non natum quorum unum habeat licet extra tempus nativitatem aliud ipsum sibi ad id quod est solus atque idem Autor aternus sit * Hisque nominibus patris filii spiritus sancti non simpliciter neque otiosis propositis sed significantibus diligenter propriam uniuscujusque nominatorum substantiam ordinem gloriam ut sint quidem per substantiam tria Volens igitur congregata sanctorum synodus impietatem eam perimere quae veritatem Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti nominum numero eluderet ut non subsistente causa uniuscujusque nominis triplex nuncupatio obtinerer sub falsitate nominum unionem Idcirco tres substantias esse dixeruntê° subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes non substantiam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes * Idcirco autem unius substantiae non utunus subsistat aut solus sed ut ex substantiâ Dei natus non aliunde subsistat neve in aliquâ dissidentis substantiae diversitate subsistat Aut aliud hic testatur homousion quà m ut una indissimilis duum sit secundum naturae propaginem essentia quia essentia filii non sit aliunde quae quia aliunde non est unius recte esse ambo creduntur essentiae quia substantiam nativitatis filius non habeat nisi de paternae autoritate naturae Credamus dicamus esse unam substantiam sed per naturae proprietatem non ad significationem impiae unionis una sit ex similitudine non ex solitudine * Anathematizat namque eos qui tres Deos dicunt quia secundum naturae veritatem numerum nuncupationum substantia ista non recipit nisi ut in hominibus Angelis solet caeterùm in natura Dei Deus unus est ita tamen ut filius Deus sit quia in eo natura non differens sit cùm Deus ex Deo sit non potest non uterque Deus esse quorum per generis differentiam non discernatur essentia Numerus autem nominis in nuncupatione respuitur quia non est in naturae qualitate diversitas cùm igitur Anathema sit duos deos dicens anathema sit filium Deum denegans absolute ostenditur unius ad uttumque nominis unitatem de proprietate in differentis esse substantiae * Tamen ne rursum unius Dei praedicatio unicam ac sine progenie suâ solitarii Dei velit affirmare substantiam statim etiam hanc condemnat temeritatem quae quia Deus unus est unum ac solitarium Deum patrem habentem in se nomen patris filii confitetur Cum in generante parre nascente filio Deus unus esset ob indifferentis ab invicem naturae substantiam praedicandus Cùm in damnatione sit patrem filium duos Deos dicere rursum anathema sit filium Deum negare substantiae diversae alterius ab alterâ opinio in praedicandis Diis duobus excluditur non enim est alia praeter illam Dei patris ex qua Dei filius Deus intemporalis est natus essentia Non enim religiosa unitas nominis ex indifferentis naturae essentia constituta personam genitae ademit essentiae ut unica ac singularis Dei essentia per unionem nominis intelligatur cùm utriusque essentiae nomen unum id est Deus unus ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur Athanasii Ep ad Antiochenses T. 1. p. 574 Et Concil T. 2 p. 810.