between man and man which by this means or such meaning if you please is entirely destroyed By all that hath bin said upon this Head I think it will appear plain to every unprejudiced person that there was great reason to condemn the Propositions mentioned in the Decree which plainly overthrow the Unity of the Godhead and therefore are justly styled false and impious Of them it is farther affirmed in the Decree that they are contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and particularly to that received here in the Church of England And so they are as opposite to it as truth is to falshood and faith to infidelity It hath bin the belief and profession of all good Christians since the first planting of Christianity in the world that as there is but one God so there is but one nature and essence in the three persons of the Trinity of which they are all partakers This was upon a particular occasion Decreed in the Council of Nice confirmed afterwards by all the other General Councils and they who have opposed this determination have in all times heretofore bin adjudged and declared Hereticks For some time indeed the words Substance Person and Hypostasis were of ambiguous signification but that was afterwards settled and the Language of the Church ever since hath bin Three persons and but one Substance Nature Essence Divinity In this all the Fathers agree both Greek and Latin even St. Hilary who styles the Father Son and Holy Ghost three substances yet in the very same place where he is cited by the Examiner he explains himself and vindicates the Synod of Antioch and tells us p. 37. Tres substantias esse dixerunt subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes by three substances they meant three persons But as to the substance it self when placed in opposition to person he acknowledges that to be but one and that the Father and son unius recte ambo creduntur esse essentiae Again Credamus dicamus esse unum substantiam p. 39. and p. 40. Deus unus ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur Which the Examiner thus renders into English The Father who begets and the Son who is born are to be acknowledged one God upon the account of the same nature in both without the least difference or variation and therefore say I without the least distinction except the Dean can find out a distinction without a difference which I confess he hath done in some other cases before mentioned But this is his peculiar talent to find out that which no body before him ever dreamed of The like observation is to be made with relation to the Alexandrian Synod under Athanasius which one would think he would never have mentioned if he had not in a manner bin forsaken by his reason at the same time that he abandoned his Religion For nothing could have bin produced which is more apposite and pertinent to overthrow his new notion of three minds and substances For there happened a dispute between the Catholicks concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was meerly a contention about words when they all agreed in the same thing those who asserted three Hypostases thereby meaning three Persons but yet but one Godhead and one substance in the Trinity those who denied there were three Hypostases thought that by Hypostasis was meant substance and they dreaded nothing more than to affirm there were three substances in the Godhead Take it in the words of the Examiner p. 43. They owned but one Hypostasis or substance for they believed but one ' Divinity or Divine nature by reason of the Identity of nature between Father and Son And they having given their several Explications were all found to agree in the Catholick Faith and then afterwards three Hypostases and one nature was the Catholick Language Can any thing be more directly opposite to his notion than this Determination of the Synod One cannot but think he was Infatuated when he produced it But still he hath a shift in reserve to save himself and his three substances For in that same place he renders Hypostasis by substance and saith that when they said three Hypostases they meant it still in the notion of three substances A very false and perfidious suggestion making the Catholick Language as he himself acknowledges it wherein Catholicks expressed their consent in the same Faith to consist in a ridiculous contradiction For according to him when they said three Hypostases and one nature they meant three substances and one nature that is three substances and one substance three natures and one nature these being two words that signify but one and the same thing But the true Language of the Church was that there are three Persons truly and really distinct and yet but one nature essence substance And this doctrine hath bin constantly uniformly and without any alteration conveyed thro all the Ages of the Church to our days this being the Faith and these the words of all Christian Churches Greek and Latin Eastern and Western that are at this day in the World And particularly of our own Church who in the first Article of our Religion teaches us to profess that there is but one God and that in the Unity of this Godhead there are three Persons of one power substance and eternity And in our most solemn addresses to Heaven she directs us to make the same acknowledgment viz. upon Trinity Sunday and to give glory to God in these words Who art one God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one substance For that which we believe of the glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and holy Ghost without any difference or inequality And if there be not any difference in the substance there can be no distinction as was said before And now at length being quite tired with following this Examiner thro that maze and Labyrinth into which he commonly leads his Readers it is high time I should take leave of him after I have committed him to the mercy of God and his writings to the censure of the Church The former I hope he will partake of the latter perhaps he and they may escape tho he stands in great need of it especially since he so obstinately and pertinaciously persists in his errors after so plain a discovery and so clear a confutation of them But I cannot fairly part with him without enquiring into the reasons which induced him to publish this Paper wherein he treats the Governors of the University in so rude and insolent a manner falling foul upon persons whose Character Profession and Station he ought to have considered and from whom he never received the least personal injury or provocation that ever I could yet hear of Among other Reasons he hath suggested one in the last page of this Book which I shall only take notice of viz. That it was
of Corporations in the Kingdom Upon which account he hath bin wont to be treated with Honor and respect by all persons of good manners and civil behaviour Besides him among the persons who composed that meeting as his friends who gave him an account of what passed there might and I suppose did inform him there were two more one whereof upon the account of his noble birth and the other of his Character and Station in the Church deserved to have bin distinguished But he without any restriction or qualification jumbles and shakes all these Heads together and represents them to the World as a Company of indiscreet ignorant rash men Some of the wiser Heads indeed he saith were absent by which he would have it believed that those who were present were a Company of illiterate and injudicious blockheads And so infallibly they must be if in the affairs of religion and the judgment and doctrines of the Ancient Church they understand nothing but by prophesy or inspiration as he saith p. 31. that is nothing at all Neither can he relieve himself by suggesting as if some who were present dissented For his friends might have informed him that after some previous discourse as usually happens at such meetings when the Censure and Decree was setled and agreed upon there was not one person who opened his mouth or said one word in opposition to it either as to matter or form So that all who were present are equally involved in those decent epithets before mentioned From the Decreeing Heads let us pass to the Decree it self this is styled the rash and hasty judgment of some of the Heads of Colleges and Halls and immediately afterwards he sets himself to shew the rashness and injudiciousness of this Decree p. 11. Sure our Author when he made this reflexion had his own writings before him in which there are so many marks of hast and precipitation But let us consider these epithets apart First he says it was a hasty judgment but that is more than he knows and if it were as hasty as he imagines yet I must tell him that is no disparagement to it in this case For there are some things so grossly and palpably false and absurd that their falshood and absurdity appear at first view and therefore require no long time or previous deliberation to detect them and when they are so detected I hope it is no Argument of rashness to condemn them And such were the propositions censured in the Decree which are directly repugnant to the common faith and universally received doctrines of all sound Christians tending plainly to overthrow the Unity of the Godhead which is the first and Fundamental principle of all Religion whether natural or revealed But if these propositions were not so grossly and palpably absurd yet the condemnation of them could not be accounted injudicious because the Heads who were concerned in that Censure herein followed and were governed by the judgment and determinations of Fathers and Councils To make this more plain Suppose any one now should assert that there are two persons or but one nature in Christ and thereby revive the Heresy of Nestorius or Eutyches would it require any long time and previous consultations to Censure those positions or could such a Censure so passed be accused of rashness I say no because we have the example and Authority of two General Councils to justify such a Condemnation which cannot be impeached of imprudence without reflecting upon the wisdom and integrity not only of the Fathers who composed those august Assemblies but likewise of the Catholick Church which hath confirmed their sentence by rejecting those errors which they Condemned He on the other hand is justly to be accounted rash and arrogant who presumes to oppose his own single opinion to the judgment and determinations of Fathers and Councils and upon that account endeavors fixa refigere to shake and unsetle those Doctrines and those words in which they have bin conveyed down to us and which are now universally established in the Christian Church In short therefore to censure any positions which have already bin condemned by any General Councils doth not require any slow or tedious consultations it is sufficient to declare them impious and scandalous because they have bin so adjudged formerly by assemblies composed of persons who have bin celebrated for their wisdom and learning and renowned for their soundness in the faith and their zeal for it And so it was in the case before us The propositions censured by the Decree were such as had formerly bin condemned by the famous Council of Nice whose Determinations have bin received with respect and reverence by all good Christians and make up at this day part of the established Doctrine of all the Churches in the Christian World who amidst that variety of judgments and opinions in other matters are at perfect agreement among themselves in this that the Father and Son are Consubstantial or of one and the same Substance to which assertions the propositions condemned are plainly and diametrically opposite it being absolutely impossible that two or three individual Substances should be one and the same Substance The second thing which ought not to be passed over without observation is that undecent reflection which in more places than one of this examination he passes upon zeal One would think he accounteth it unlawful and unwarrantable in the affairs of Religion or else sure he would never brand any man with the name of Zealot as if it were a mark of infamy and reproach He ought therefore to be told that there never was a just sense and a firm belief of Religion found in any person where it was not likewise accompanyed with a zeal concern for it which for that reason was never condemed by any wise or honest man Neither indeed can it be censured without a bold and dangerous reflection upon our blessed Savior himself and together with him upon those wise and good men who in all ages of the world as occasion hath served have shewen a zeal for the Glory of God and a just concern for the preservation and maintenance of the true Religion It is true indeed it may be as oftentimes it hath bin joined with ignorance or excess in which cases it hath bin found to be so far from being serviceable to the interest of truth that it hath rather bin the occasion of a great deal of mischief in the world But on the other hand to disparage and expose it without any just restriction and limitation is to introduce a coldness and indifference among men in the great affairs of Religion which in time may end in the ruin and extinction of it Perhaps it will be said that he doth not design to condemn zeal absolutely and for it self but as it is to be found in conjunction with some other ill qualifications which are apt to corrupt and spoil it the best things being liable to abuse and when
and much inferior to a singular and numerical Identity It is this latter then that is to be found in the Godhead which being uncapable of division or multiplication is for the same reason as he himself acknowledges uncapable of numeration For when we say three persons Three belongs to the persons who are three but not to the Godhead which is but one p. 18. And now is it not plain to any man that the Dean by thus going forward and backward saying and unsaying very evidently contradicts himself I think he doth But if this wants any farther confirmation let the Reader look into his Vindication and there he will find these contradictions yet in more plain and express terms if it be possible which the Reader may find exemplified in the Animadversions p. 178. c. and thither I refer him to save the trouble of transcribing But the Dean for all this will not allow that he is guilty of a contradiction and therefore to save himself from that imputation he hath contrived two Answers but they are the most bold and arbitrary that ever were invented But when men are hard pressed it is no wonder that they should make use of any the most desperate shift to make their escape 1st then Doth not he who asserts the unity of the Godhead and yet tells the world that this is neither a specifick nor a numerical unity for of a Generical one there is no question in this case I say doth not such an one contradict himself Surely he doth For if God be one he must be so in either of these two senses And therefore if the Godhead be one and yet is neither numerically nor specifically such it must be one and not one which is a contradiction He answers no because there is an unity that is a medium between both The unity of the Godhead is not such as is to be found in a singular nature that is saith he Sabellianism neither is it a specifick unity for that is only a Logical and notional unity and therefore the unity of the divine nature is not to be confined to this p. 19. In opposition to the Arians the Father 's taught not one singular substance in God which is Sabellianism But such an oneness of substance as we know not how otherwise to express than by a specifick sameness and unity tho that doth not answer the complete notion of the Divine unity p. 33. In short the Divine nature is one but by what kind of unity no man can divine It is neither a specifical nor a numerical oneness but an unity either made up of both or made up of neither however it is a medium between them I fancy such another medium as he found who desired the people to join with him in singing the Psalm that was between the three and twentieth and the twenty fourth Psalms But if this Answer will not bring him off he hath contrived a second viz. that these three numerical substances are united into one by a mutual self-consciousness But for this notion of his the Animadverter hath sufficiently-accounted with him and therefore there remains nothing more by me to be said upon that Head Thus it is plain that the Dean in his writings is guilty of many gross and palpable contradictions which way of writing is very scandalous and ought therefore by every one to be condemned But this is not all there are several other things in his way manner of writing which ought to be discountenanced I can but just name them Any man that peruses his late writings will besides his contradictions find in the 2d place that he frequently but very fraudulently endeavors to impose upon his Readers by makeing two words to be equipollent which yet have a different signification Thus in order to amuse unwary Readers when he speaks of the divine nature he joins the words singular and solitary together as if they were synonymous terms and then insidiously asks p. 17. Is it not Sabellianism to affirm that there is but one singular and solitary nature in the Trinity Answer To affirm that there is but one solitary nature is to revive the Heresy of Sabellius because it were as much as to say that the divine nature or substance is to be found only in and therefore confined to one Person But to say there is but one singular nature imports no such thing For the same singular numerical nature is to be found in each of the divine Persons being common to them all but yet without multiplication as he hath often bin told by his Adversary and which thing he hath often affirmed himself how sincerely let others judge So again in order to establish a plurality of substances he makes three substantial persons to be the same with three personal substances But he hath bin often told that tho the persons are different each of which is a substance yet that the substance or nature is not distinct but common to all three And therefore three substantial Persons are no more three substances than three divine Almighty Persons have three distinct Divinities or Almightinesses which he himself sometimes will not allow 3dly When hard pressed by his Adversary to defend himself he invents several arbitrary and incomprehensible distinctions for which he hath neither reason nor example Thus when told that three substances must infer a multiplication of the divine nature in the Trinity that again must infer three Gods to avoid the force of this Argument he tells us that the same Individual nature subsists thrice not by multiplying but by repeating its self and that the divine nature is repeated in its Image but without multiplication And this senseless distinction he often repeats in his defence by which it is certain that he multiplies words tho perhaps he may think that he doth not multiply distinctions Again having denied a Numerical Unity of the Godhead and yet being aware that a Specifical Unity would lay him open to many unanswerable difficulties he hath in a most presumtuous unprecedented manner formed a distinction as to Identity and sameness of nature by which he makes a middle sort of Unity between the two former partly specifick and partly numerical Which distinction is perfectly an Original and for which he hath neither copy nor precedent from any writer either living or dead Lastly In the same insidious manner to avoid the force of those Arguments which are brought against him when he cannot maintain his words he flies to his meaning where he entrenches himself and then he is as safe as if he were in an enchanted Castle And there let him continue for me unmolested and undisturb'd provided that he will no longer disturb the world with so unjustifiable a practice for if men may be allowed by a mental reservation to harbor a meaning different from the plain obvious and natural signification of words then there is an end of all truth and sincerity and consequently of all mutual confidence