Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A38076
|
Remarks upon a book lately published by Dr. Will. Sherlock ... entituled, A modest examination of the Oxford decree, &c.
|
Edwards, Jonathan, 1629-1712.
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing E221; ESTC R17931
|
28,355
|
66
|
between man and man which by this means or such meaning if you please is entirely destroyed By all that hath bin said upon this Head I think it will appear plain to every unprejudiced person that there was great reason to condemn the Propositions mentioned in the Decree which plainly overthrow the Unity of the Godhead and therefore are justly styled false and impious Of them it is farther affirmed in the Decree that they are contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and particularly to that received here in the Church of England And so they are as opposite to it as truth is to falshood and faith to infidelity It hath bin the belief and profession of all good Christians since the first planting of Christianity in the world that as there is but one God so there is but one nature and essence in the three persons of the Trinity of which they are all partakers This was upon a particular occasion Decreed in the Council of Nice confirmed afterwards by all the other General Councils and they who have opposed this determination have in all times heretofore bin adjudged and declared Hereticks For some time indeed the words Substance Person and Hypostasis were of ambiguous signification but that was afterwards settled and the Language of the Church ever since hath bin Three persons and but one Substance Nature Essence Divinity In this all the Fathers agree both Greek and Latin even St. Hilary who styles the Father Son and Holy Ghost three substances yet in the very same place where he is cited by the Examiner he explains himself and vindicates the Synod of Antioch and tells us p. 37. Tres substantias esse dixerunt subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes by three substances they meant three persons But as to the substance it self when placed in opposition to person he acknowledges that to be but one and that the Father and son unius recte ambo creduntur esse essentiae Again Credamus dicamus esse unum substantiam p. 39. and p. 40. Deus unus ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur Which the Examiner thus renders into English The Father who begets and the Son who is born are to be acknowledged one God upon the account of the same nature in both without the least difference or variation and therefore say I without the least distinction except the Dean can find out a distinction without a difference which I confess he hath done in some other cases before mentioned But this is his peculiar talent to find out that which no body before him ever dreamed of The like observation is to be made with relation to the Alexandrian Synod under Athanasius which one would think he would never have mentioned if he had not in a manner bin forsaken by his reason at the same time that he abandoned his Religion For nothing could have bin produced which is more apposite and pertinent to overthrow his new notion of three minds and substances For there happened a dispute between the Catholicks concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was meerly a contention about words when they all agreed in the same thing those who asserted three Hypostases thereby meaning three Persons but yet but one Godhead and one substance in the Trinity those who denied there were three Hypostases thought that by Hypostasis was meant substance and they dreaded nothing more than to affirm there were three substances in the Godhead Take it in the words of the Examiner p. 43. They owned but one Hypostasis or substance for they believed but one ' Divinity or Divine nature by reason of the Identity of nature between Father and Son And they having given their several Explications were all found to agree in the Catholick Faith and then afterwards three Hypostases and one nature was the Catholick Language Can any thing be more directly opposite to his notion than this Determination of the Synod One cannot but think he was Infatuated when he produced it But still he hath a shift in reserve to save himself and his three substances For in that same place he renders Hypostasis by substance and saith that when they said three Hypostases they meant it still in the notion of three substances A very false and perfidious suggestion making the Catholick Language as he himself acknowledges it wherein Catholicks expressed their consent in the same Faith to consist in a ridiculous contradiction For according to him when they said three Hypostases and one nature they meant three substances and one nature that is three substances and one substance three natures and one nature these being two words that signify but one and the same thing But the true Language of the Church was that there are three Persons truly and really distinct and yet but one nature essence substance And this doctrine hath bin constantly uniformly and without any alteration conveyed thro all the Ages of the Church to our days this being the Faith and these the words of all Christian Churches Greek and Latin Eastern and Western that are at this day in the World And particularly of our own Church who in the first Article of our Religion teaches us to profess that there is but one God and that in the Unity of this Godhead there are three Persons of one power substance and eternity And in our most solemn addresses to Heaven she directs us to make the same acknowledgment viz. upon Trinity Sunday and to give glory to God in these words Who art one God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one substance For that which we believe of the glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and holy Ghost without any difference or inequality And if there be not any difference in the substance there can be no distinction as was said before And now at length being quite tired with following this Examiner thro that maze and Labyrinth into which he commonly leads his Readers it is high time I should take leave of him after I have committed him to the mercy of God and his writings to the censure of the Church The former I hope he will partake of the latter perhaps he and they may escape tho he stands in great need of it especially since he so obstinately and pertinaciously persists in his errors after so plain a discovery and so clear a confutation of them But I cannot fairly part with him without enquiring into the reasons which induced him to publish this Paper wherein he treats the Governors of the University in so rude and insolent a manner falling foul upon persons whose Character Profession and Station he ought to have considered and from whom he never received the least personal injury or provocation that ever I could yet hear of Among other Reasons he hath suggested one in the last page of this Book which I shall only take notice of viz. That it was
Oecumenical or National He must therefore only be so either virtually or by way of representation And sure some such thing he fancies of himself viz. that the Christian Faith or at least the words wherein it is to be expressed are committed to his care or rather are to be disposed of at his pleasure Otherwise sure he would never talk as he doth in this book For instance p. 16. He hath these remarkable words Now since Person is the Catholick word which long Ecclesiastical use hath rendered familiar I should by no means allow of any other word in this mystery could we retain the Catholick Faith together with the word What must words be used or laid aside at his discretion He acknowledges the word to be Ecclesiastical the Church hath made it her own she hath adopted it into her Creeds and confessions of her Faith by long use it is now rendered familiar and is become the common Language of all Christians What Authority I pray hath he to order the laying of it aside I should by no means allow c. It is fit he should be told upon this occasion that this word was anciently used without his leave and will still continue to be so without his allowance For neither the faith nor language of the Church have any such dependance upon him as that they must stand or fall at his pleasure But lastly whatever Authority the Church may have to alter the usual and received forms of speech yet to be sure she would never exercise it except forced as was intimated before by some very great and some very apparent reason To this he answers that there is as great reason and necessity for such an alteration of words now as ever there was in any age of the Church p. 12. And the reason that he assigns is this viz. That we are in great danger of losing the Catholick Faith by the revival of the Heresy of Sabellius p. 16. which walks publickly abroad tho under the disguise of a new name And if we believe him it is one of those doctrines too publickly received in the Church of England which are not the true doctrines of our Church p. 44. Now this I cannot but say is not only extremely false but likewise a very scandalous suggestion Because it must not only affect our own times and Nation but likewise bring all other Churches Ancient and Modern Eastern and Western Roman and Reformed under the same suspicion For all these are at perfect agreement both in the belief of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in the manner of expressing their Faith which is by the profession of three persons and one nature or substance So that if by retaining the old words there is danger of losing the Catholick Faith it must be lost out of the Catholick Church and this revolt to Sabellianism must be both the most lasting and the most general Apostasy that ever was foretold or feared should happen to the Christian Church But as to what may concern this Church I believe if all wise and good men in it have reason to fear any danger 't is from another quarter I mean from the revival of the Heresies of Arius Pelagius and Socinus which some evil men with great industry and with no small art endeavor to propagate among us But 2dly Tho the charge of Sabellianism be a very great and heavy one yet we ought not to look upon it to be such a bug-bear as thereby to be affrighted out of our Religion We may comfort our selves with this that this imputation is no other nor better than what hath formerly bin made by Hereticks against the Orthodox For the Arian against whom Zanchy wrote in his Antithesis doctrinae Christianae Antichristi de uno vero Deo and Valentinus Gentilis in order to establish his Doctrine of three distinct infinite Spirits made the very same objection against the Catholick Faith with relation to the error of Sabellius Cantilenam Sabellii nobis obgannit saith Aretius of Gentilis eandem nobis cantilenam occinit Decanus may we say But as they who believe three persons and but one nature or substance are as far from being Sabellians as any the greatest Tritheist so they no doubt will be as ready to oppose the attempts of such who at any time hereafter may endeavor to revive the Heresy of Sabellius But in order to combate that Heresy they will not think themselves obliged to use any other weapons than those with which in former times it hath bin so succesfully vanquished The faith hath bin transmitted down to us for these thirteen centuries in that form of sound words viz. Three Persons and one nature and hath conquered all opposition made against it and in all times since they who have refused the Language of the Church have bin justly suspected to be no true friends to the faith of it which now by long use and the prescription of so many ages have contracted such a friendship that they are like to live or die together And therefore we find none as I now intimated who in any times heretofore either quarrelled with or rejected the words established in the Church but either open Hereticks or such who were justly suspected to favor their errors Thus of old the Arians and Semi-Arians were displeased with the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words troubled and gave offence to many forsooth and were such as rather perplexed than explained this Doctrine being above the reach of mens understanding and conceptions So the Polish and Transylvanian Unitarians in their times made the same complaints That the Church by using those words homoousion Person Essence Unity Trinity had perfectly confounded all right notions of God and in a manner overturned the Christian Religion Valentinus Gentilis echoed back the same calumnies from Bern and Geneva and called the former words monstrosae profanae voces quibus omnia divina mysteria pervertuntur And to bring up the rear we find the Dean in his vindication declaring his displeasure against them in the like expressions p. 138. where he tells us that that which hath confounded this mystery hath bin the vain endeavor of reducing it to terms of art such as Nature Essence Substance Existence Hypostasis Person and the like I am sorry to find him in such ill company Tho I charitably hope he is not engaged in the same evil designs with them However it will become all men of wisdom and integrity to avoid giving any the least countenance to such tho but suspicious practices which we have reason to think were first set on foot on purpose to undermine our holy Faith and Religion There is one thing more to be observed before I come to consider the propositions which I had almost forgotten but it must not by any means be omitted and that is his very curious and critical remark upon the Latin Decree p. 5. where he tells us that he who