says of the Fathers if I mistake him not is to this purpose That though the Fathers might have the same Notions of the Trinity that we now have namely That every one of the Blessed Three has a peculiar Distinction in himself by which he is truly Different from the other Two yet in their Explanations of this Doctrine they often went so far as might give occasion to some to think that they believ'd an Inequality between the Persons and a Subordination of the Second and Third to the First And their Explanatory Notions of the Trinity seem sometimes to carry them beyond those Bounds the Holy Scriptures had set them By all which his Lordship could design nothing more than to shew us That since some even of the Fathers were sometimes confounded in their Explanations of that Sacred Inconceivable Mystery it would be great Presumption in us to offer to explain the Modes or to pretend to have any adequate Conceptions of it That we may not presume to dive into the Depths of those Mysteries which the Primitive Ages of the Church could never Fathom And if they unhappily failed in the Attempt it will be great Arrogance in us to hope of having any better Success Nor do I find the least Shadow of Reason to think Pag. 2. that the Bishop in any part of his Discourse as our Author too falsly and maliciously insinuates censures the Catholick and Establisht Principles of the Ancients but only shews us some of their Failures and Imperfections He denies not that the Fathers believ'd a Trinity as the Scriptures had revealed it but only that they were at a loss when they offer'd to make the manner of it intelligible which is to take away the Mysteriousness of it And I wonder how our Author has the Confidence to say more I will give this parallel Instance which may serve both to defend and illustrate what the Bishop has said upon this Subject of the Fathers which our pretended Vindicator where there is the least necessity for it makes the greatest noise about We of the Church of England do certainly believe and can undeniably prove that the Primitive Church were of the same Doctrine and Faith with us concerning the Eucharist that there was no Corporal but only a Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body yet we also confess that some of the Fathers have exprest themselves in some of their Writings in such high Strains and Figurative Raptures as might give occasion to some to think that they meant a Corporal Presence by those lofty Expressions which only their height of Devotion drew from them After the same manner we may conclude that though the Fathers believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is revealed in Scripture yet in their Explanations of the Modes and Manner of it some of them may have given us Cause to think that several of those Expressions which they have let fall about it as well as of the forementioned Doctrine went farther than they were instructed or warranted by God's Word And this I think may be sufficient to explain the Bishop's Sense about the Fathers if I understand him aright and to answer all those ill Natur'd Exceptions which our Vindicator has very unjustly fram'd against it But I shall have more to say to him in his due place I shall then examine his first Charge against the Bishop Pag. â— viz. That he foully states the Faith of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ and therein of the Holy Trinity Of which says our Author The Bishop tells us there have been three Opinions the Socinian Arian and that which he would have called the Catholick and Christian Faith Now where is the Fault of all this and yet as I perceive this is one of the Chiefest Imputations of Heresie against the Bishop I never heard any Man yet so much as spoken against for saying that there are Three Opinions about the Eucharist the Roman the Lutheran and that of the Church of England with those that believe the same Doctrine And if any one should ask me whether these Opinions were within or without the Church I should justly brand him with the Character of Impertinent and think him not worth answering It is such a common form of expressing our selves that I wonder how it could come into any Man's thoughts to cavil at it But he adds That which is more grievously suspicious I wonder how he came to omit Heretical is that his Lordship calls the Catholick Faith but a meer Opinion and Persuasion of a Party With what Confidence he asserts this I can't imagine He cannot shew me where the Bishop says that the Catholick Faith is but a meer Opinion for my part I can see no such thing throughout the whole Discourse no more than I can find that he says 't is the Persuasion of a Party I suppose he had a mind that the Bishop should have said it and since he has not he is so kind as to do it for him For the Bishop in his Preface calls it the great Article of Christianity its most important Head and rejects the Pacificatory Doctrines of those who think that a diversity of Opinions may be endured upon those Heads without breaking Communion about them He says they seem to be the Fundamentals of Christianity And he thus concludes his Discourse upon this Head This Doctrine is so plainly set down in the New Testament that if the Socinians Expositions are to be admitted it will be hard to preserve any Respect for it or to believe those Books writ with the common Degrees of Honesty and Discretion not to speak of Inspiration And all this is very fully repeated in the Bishop's Letter to Dr. Williams So that to infer from his stating this matter at first as a Third Opinion that he thought it to be no more than an Opinion is a Strain as unjust as it is malicious All that the Bishop says of Opinion is no more than this viz. The third Opinion is that the Godhead Pag. 31. by the Eternal Word c. And a little after by those of this Persuasion c. And then a little after he adds That this is the Doctrine I intend now to explain to you And then after he has explain'd it according to the Sense of the Church of England he calls it the received Doctrine by which he can only mean nor can any one else give another Interpretation of it than the Article of our Faith which we profess to believe and defend I would willingly know where is the hurt of all this in saying as I before mentioned that there are Three Opinions concerning Christ's Presence in the Sacrament one of which is that of our Church which I am fully persuaded is a Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures and confirmed by the Authority of the Primitive Fathers Dares any one I say after all this urge that I assert this only as a new Opinion and Persuasion of a Party And if the Bishop does
catechize the Apostle for not using the Word Person as he very ridiculously exposes himself since there is as much reason for the one as the other But besides his Lordship has several times mentioned Person in relation to the Trinity which none of the Apostles or Evangelists have ever done But had he not done it yet the Reason which he gives in answer to his Socinian Adversary may be sufficient to excuse it And therefore I shall here beg leave to transcribe those Words When Christ commanded all to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Pag. 99 100. Son and Holy Ghost he plainly mentioned Three if therefore I to adhere to Scripture Terms had avoided the frequent use of any other Word but the Three I thought how much soever this might offend others who might apprehend that I seem'd to avoid mentioning of Trinity or Persons which yet I shewed flowed from no dislike of those Words but meerly that I might stick more exactly to Scripture Terms yet I had no reason to think that Men of the other side would have found such Fault with this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Three of whom I discourse so instead of repeating these Words at every time I shorten'd it by saying the Blessed Three Now it is a strain particular to our Author who I suppose had it from the Socinian Writer to enlarge on this But now let us look into our Author and see if he is not guilty of as great Faults or Heresies as those which he falsly objects against the Bishop His Lordship's Pag. 22 23. Words which he censures are these The Second of this Blessed Three was united to a perfect Man that is according to our Author 's own Interpretation the Second Person in the Holy Trinity took our Flesh which directly follows from his Criticism upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of the Messias who was both God and Man This he condemns as false Doctrine because it denies the Personality of Christ to be Eternal but if this be false Doctrine I deny it too For I neither acknowledge or believe that Christ who was God and Man was Eternal but only the Second Person in the Trinity who in the fulness of time took our Flesh and by that Union became Christ our Anointed High Priest and the Messias that was to come into the World And I dare positively affirm that from this Union resulted the Personality of Christ that is the Messias though our Vindicator of the Doctrine of the Church and the Ancient Fathers does positively deny it His Words are these That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted Pag. 23. from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality Now I would desire to know whether this is the Doctrine of our Church if not 't is Heresie and destroys the reality of the Incarnation The Athanasian Creed which we profess to adhere to makes Personality to consist in the Vnion of God and Man As thus Who although he be God and Man perfect God and perfect Man God of the Substance of the Father and Man of the Substance of his Mother yet he is not two but one Christ And thus it is explained For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh if separated and taken apart make two distinct Substances yet as they are united are but one Man or Person so that is after the same manner God and Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting which takes in the whole 〈…〉 Man is one Christ And although he was God the Second Person from all Eternity yet before he took the Manhood into God he could not be the Person Christ Jesus or the Messias Our Author very confidently and erroneously affirms that the assumption of the Humane Nature to the Divine contributed nothing of Personality to the Messias But certainly the Athanasian Creed if Words were design'd to express the Sense of a thing teach the directly contrary Doctrine For why should it say that God and Man is one Christ if it did not mean that the compleat Person of Christ resulted from that union I would ask our Author whether the Man Christ Jesus be a Person or not If he be whether it is only as he is God or Man or as he is both If he is only as he is God what becomes of the Man and of the Substance which he had of his Mother For if it does not enter into the Personality it is nothing but an accident that might be destroyed at Pleasure and yet the Messias that is perfect God and perfect Man should remain the same Person still Now I wonder with what Confidence a Man that pretends to vindicate the Ancient Doctrine of the Church to censure others for Heresle and to refer his Vindications to the Sense and Judgment of the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England the two famous Vniversities and the next Session of Convocation should deny an Ancient Doctrine of the Church the direct Sense of the great and most Orthodox Athanasius which the Creed so called is supposed to be the Summ of and the present Faith and Persuasion of our own Church of England which God grant may long stand fixt and immovable in the Simplicity and Purity of its Primitive Doctrine against all false Pretenders to Truth and all uncharitable Censurers of its Faith But we have not yet done with his Errors In the Pag. 23. same Paragraph he tells us That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality for to this the Humane Nature was assumed or pre-existent If the Humane Nature was assumed to Christ then he was Christ that is the Messias before he was Incarnate which is unintelligible What he means by the Humane Nature's being pre-existent to the Personality or Person of Christ I can't find If he believes that the Humane Nature of Christ did exist before it was united to the Godhead I presume 't is downright Heresie for that makes them two distinct Persons at least it makes him the Messias before the union of both Natures But besides as soon as Christ was born he was stiled Christ the Lord by way of Eminence to shew that he was then truly God and that he was Christ our Saviour only by that Union of both Natures in him and not before And therefore I presume that the Humane Nature did not pre-exist before he was one altogether not by confusion of Substance but by unity of Person Whatever he means by this Term I can find nothing but down-right Absurdity and Contradiction in it Now I was much wondring how our Author came to light upon this Notion That nothing of the Personality of Christ resulted from the Humane Nature But finding by the Thread of his Discourse that he had read somewhere that when two
REMARKS Of an University-Man UPON A Late BOOK Falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum Written by Mr. Hill of Killmington LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCXCV REMARKS UPON A late Book falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. THE great Satisfaction I had in reading the Lord Bishop of Sarum ' s Four Discourses to his Clergy and that especially concerning the Divinity of our Saviour wherein I met with such excellent Arguments as I had not found in other Authors for the Confirmation of that great Article of our Faith oblig'd me to think that they could not but be receiv'd with as general an Esteem and Approbation as in my Judgment they deserv'd And as I was persuaded they would be extreamly useful so I could not but imagine they would remain unexcepted against by the most Malicious and Ill-natured unless they were such as denied the very Divinity of our Saviour All which I was the more fully convinc'd of and believ'd I might relie upon them as agreeable to the true and orthodox Doctrine of the Church since they appeared in Publick with the Approbation and Licence of the never enough to be admired Late Archbishop of Canterbury whose Sincerity Clearness and Strength of Judgment I was well assured would approve of nothing as the Doctrine of the Church and fit to believed by its Clergy which deserv'd the Censure of a Convocation And though there came out some Exceptions against the Second Discourse which relates to the Divinity and Death of Christ as well as against the Archbishop's Sermons and one of the Bishop of Worcester ' s by the Socinian Party yet they appear'd so trifling especially since they have been answered by the Bishop of Sarum ' s Letter to Dr. Williams which is annex'd to his Learned Vindication of the other Two that they rather confirm'd than lessen'd my Opinion of it But I must confess I was something surpris'd and began to distrust my Judgment when I saw Mr. Hill's Book come forth with such a Title as I thought was almost enough had there been nothing more in it to have made the Bishop's Second Discourse which is the only one aim'd at be censur'd as Heretical and had it been made good must have thought it my Duty also as being a Member of one of those Bodies to whose Judgment the Book is referred as well as to the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England and the next Session of Convocation to assist at the Solemnity of condemning the Bishop himself for an Heretick But when I considered that it was grown to too general a Custom for Authors to make large and specious Titles to make amends for the emptiness of the Book and that they oftner give a Specimen of their own ill Nature than of any real Errors they discover I began to be no more concern'd at the Title than I was at the mighty Quotations which this Author makes use of when I considered that by turning to the Indexes of the Paris Editions of the Fathers in our Publick Library I could quote as much and as little to the Purpose as our Author has done I am almost apt to think it would be labour lost to run through his whole Book to detect every Absurdity in it since I believe those who have read the Preface to it were so sufficiently convinc'd of the weakness of the Author that they could not think it worth their while to make any farther search into it 'T is a great deal of Pity that the Letter which he mentions to have sent to his Lordship did not appear with the Preface for certainly it must have prov'd as great a Satire upon himself as the Preface appears to be But I am too forward in my Censure for if you will believe him the Bishop is mightily beholding to him for his gentle usage of him and for not divulging some Private Practice which upon fitting terms he is contented to hush up at present And therefore his Lordship had not best provoke him and think of returning an Answer for if he doth he shall then be set free from all Obligations to Secrecy and good Manners and then Wo betide him This I take to be the Sense of what follows viz. But for the Private Practice objected to him I will at present spare him and if his Lordship will be so kind to himself as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Matter shall be hushed up A trifling and Childish Insinuation For had the Bishop been really guilty of any such Private Practice as would have been a dishonourable Reflection upon him I question not but we should have heard more of it since so much Malice could never have let slip so fair an Occasion without making the best Improvements of it had there been any thing more that could have advanc'd the Credit of the other Aspersions or have been any support to the weakness of the Cause The rest of the Preface is of the same Piece and thus he concludes it But as to his Doctrine it is gone abroad and cannot return and if it be of evil Influence on young Students or Men prepar'd to Irreligion or of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign or State of Religion every Man has a just right fairly and bravely to oppose it without fear of Men or respect of Persons And if it be not so I promise his Lordship the most publick Recantation and Penance And supposing he should be oblig'd to undergo it with the utmost severity the Law could inflict he may remain a lasting and sad Example of the Punishment due to all Libellers and to all malicious Forgers of Falsehood For though I have made a very diligent search into the Bishop's Discourse and into the Objections this Author has made against it yet I do solemnly protest that I do not find any one of those Charges made good against it What he means by these Words of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign I can't guess I believe they are not only very rude but such a malicious Insinuation as if it can be understood deserves a more severe Answer and of a different Nature than I am able to give him How fairly and bravely he has opposed any thing that the Bishop has said or rather how fairly and openly he has rendred himself contemptible is now high time to consider He begins his Book with a great deal of Confidence and supercilious Contempt That he has Two things to urge against the Lord Bishop of Sarum in his Discourse on the Divinity and Death of Christ 1. That the Bishop very defectively to say no worse states our Faith and Doctrine in the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation And 2. That he exposes the Fathers under the same and worse Imputations which is the Second thing that he says offends All that the Bishop