A modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of Oxford, and some heads of colleges and halls concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1696 Approx. 87 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59831 Wing S3303 ESTC R14301 12004696 ocm 12004696 52275 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59831) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 52275) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 878:6) A modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of Oxford, and some heads of colleges and halls concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [2], 46 p. Printed for W. Rogers ..., London : 1696. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Trinity -- Early works to 1800. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-02 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2005-02 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A MODEST EXAMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY and REASONS Of the Late DECREE OF THE Vice-Chancellor of OXFORD , AND Some HEADS of Colleges and Halls ; CONCERNING The Heresy of Three Distinct Infinite-Minds in the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity . By WILLIAM SHERLOCK , D. D. Dean of St. Paul's , Master of the Temple , and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . LONDON : Printed for W. Rogers , at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet . MDCXCVI . A MODEST EXAMINATION OF THE Oxford Decree , &c. NO Man has truer Honour and Reverence for that Great and Learned Body of the University of Oxford , nor has paid more just Civilities and Respects to any of the Heads or Members of it , as I have happened to be acquainted with them , than my self ; which makes it very uneasy to me , that there should be the least appearance of any Quarrel or Disrespect on either side . I can despise a Thousand Jacobite Stories , even with all the Additional Comments and Flourishes of a Malicious Animadverter ; and justify my Neglect and Silence , to my self , who am most nearly concerned in it : For many of those Stories I can only deny , because I know nothing of them , but only this , that according to my Principles and Inclinations , it was morally impossible that I should say or do such things : And what I do remember any thing of , is falsly reported ; and yet cannot be rectified without betraying the Privacies of Conversation , as my Accusers have done , and reflecting sharply upon some who have been old Friends , whatever they are now ; which are such hateful Vices , and so destructive to the Innocent Freedoms of Conversation , that nothing but absolute necessity can justify or apologize for the least approaches to them . But the Charge of Heresy is of a different nature , especially considering my Profession , Character , and Station in the Church , which will not admit of a Complemental Silence : That if it should be thought too bold and daring to enter the Lists with these Oxford Heads , that force and necessity which they themselves have put upon me , and which a very modest man neither can nor ought to resist , I hope will excuse it . But how come I to be concerned in this Decree , which only censures one of their own Members , for some Passages in a Sermon about the Trinity ; which , as it is said , gave just occasion of Offence and Scandal to many ? How many were offended , I can't tell ; whether they had just cause of Offence , shall be examined presently ; but how much soever they were offended , they did not think it deserved such a censure : For when a Warm Zealot promoted a Petition to the Vice-Chancellor for a Censure , he could persuade but one Master of Arts to subscribe it . But though this Decree was occasioned by this Oxford Preacher , yet every one knew as soon as they saw it or heard of it , that it was aimed against me : I 'm sure these Gentlemen knew very well what work there has been made with Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits . The Animadverter had railed himself out of breath , and then calls for a Decretum Oxoniense to help him ; which was the wisest thing he could do ; for his Reason will never do any hurt ; but such a Decretum might furnish him with new Topicks of Railing . It happen'd as luckily for the purpose as if it had been contrived , that this Preacher used some of the same Expressions which I had done , and which the Animadverter had charged with Tritheism , viz. Three Distinct Infinite Minds and Spirits . This was an Opportunity not to be neglected , to obtain his desired Decree : Dr. South sollicited the Cause with such Zeal and Importunity , as could not be resisted ; and , as I am informed , prepared the way for it in a furious Sermon the Sunday before , wherein he upbraided them , as being afraid to condemn Heresy , Deism , Socinianism , Tritheism , lest they should fall from Ecclesiastical Grace , and the door of Preferment should be shut against them ; which was a very civil Complement both to them and to the Governors of our Church . Some of the wisest Heads among them , and who were most concerned in a Decree of Heresy , were absent ; others absented themselves ; and some who were present in the Convention , dissented , alledging , That their Proceedings were Irregular , and not according to their Statutes . But some of the Animadverters Complexion and Interest , with great Zeal over-ruled the rest , and the Decree was past , and printed in Latin , in these words : In Conventu D. Vice-Cancellarii & Prefectorum Collegiorum & Aularum Vniversitatis Oxon. Die Vicesimo quinto Novembris . A. D. 1695. CUM in Concione nuper habitâ coram Universitate Oxon. in Templo S. Petri in Oriente , ad Festum SS . Simonis & Judae proxime elapsum , haec Verba , inter alia , publice prolata & asserta suerunt , viz. [ 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 . ] Quae verba multis justam offensionis Causam & Scandalum dedêre : Dominus Vice-Cancellarius & Praefecti Collegiorum & Aularum , in generali suo Conventu jam congregati , Judicant , Declarant , & Decernunt , praedicta Verba esse Falsa , Impia , & Heretica ; Dissona & Contraria Doctrinae Ecclesiae Catholicae , & speciatim Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae , publice receptae . Quapropter praecipiunt & firmiter injungunt Omnibus & singulis , eorum fidei & curae commissis , ne ●ale aliquod Dogma , in Concionibus , aut aliàs , in posterum proferant . Ex Decreto Domini Vice-Cancellarii & Prefectorum Ben. Cooper Not. publicus & Registrarius Vniversitatis Oxon. Whoever drew up this Decree , some Criticks say he need not brag much of his Skill in Latin , having transgressed the plain Rules of Grammar , in using Eorum fidei & curae , for suae . But this Latin Decree did not satisfy the Animadverter , but for the Benefit and Edification of English Readers , he ( as is easy to guess ) Translates it , and adds a notable Title , and a notable Remark to it . The Title is , An Account of the Decree of the Vniversity of Oxford , against some Heretical Tenets . The Remark by way of Postscript is , It may be noted , That the Propositions above-mentioned are Dr. S — k's in his Discourse of the Trinity , and the Defenders of it , and wrote against by the Animadverter , &c. which is as good English as the other is Latin : And yet this did not satisfy him , till he had published this Oxford Decree against Dr. Sherlock in one of the Weekly Prints . Spectatum admissi ! Certainly he thinks there is no standing against this Oxford Decree ; and therefore in the first place let us briefly examine the Authority of it . He calls it , The Decree of the Vniversity of Oxford ; which is a mere Sham ; for some Heads of Colleges and Halls were never yet thought the Vniversity of Oxford : But that Great and Learned Body , if they will vindicate their own Rights , are more concerned in this than I am . The Decree of an Oxford 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 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 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 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 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 , 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 . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59831-e150 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 unigeni●i filii de patre substantiam , ad innascibilem Dei essentiam referat , quasi filium patrem dicens , anathema sit . † Dedisse superior definicio occasionem haereti●is videbatur , cùm tempus nativitatis filii negaretur , quia nef●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 dixeruntꝰ 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 , quàm 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.