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
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
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
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
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