Fathers the true Christian justifying Faith CHAP. IV. Credulity not an excess of Divine Faith What deference is to be paid to General Councils That they cannot err à piè Credibile They are the best expedients of Vnity CHAP. V. The belief of Christ's Divinity one of the difficulties in the planting the Gospel The belief of this frequently incouraged by our Saviour The belief of Christ's Divinity useful to Religion 1. By gaining Authority to his Laws 2. By improving our love and gratitude 3. By assuring us of pardon CHAP. VI. Our Saviour's Titles not Hyperbolical Not called the Son of God as a great Mountain is called the Mountain of God c. He is not the Son of God as Angels are The splendor of his Nature no bar to our being certain of his Divinity CHAP. VII The Authour's Testimony of Constantine concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity examined Constantine ' s judgment of Arianism The supposition of a plurality of Worlds no Argument that the Eternal Son of God should not dy for the sins of this No Argument against the Trinity because it is not said expresly in Scripture that every one to be baptized must believe in it The Ancient Christians before Baptism always instructed in this Doctrine A Testimony out of Justin Martyr examined A Testimony of Leonas in Socrates examined CHAP. VIII Another Testimony of Constantine examined In what sense our Saviour's Original is unknown How Melchizedeck is a Type of Christ. The Authour 's saying that the Evangelists do confound the Genealogies on purpose to puzzle us considered A Vindication of Bishop Alexander's contest with Arius A Citation out of Socrates concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined Athanasius's explication of the Trinity defended Not absurd to believe a mystery Account of the proceedings of the Council of Syrmium No necessity that Christ having two Natures should have two Persons His being but one Person does not make him have but one Nature An account of the Condemnation of Eutyches An account of the Heretical Council at Ephesus that restored him The wickedness of the Eutychians in that Council The reason of the honour done to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon The favour granted to the Eutychians by Basiliscus no Argument against the Orthodox Doctrine Monothelitism not owing to the Doctrine of the Trinity An Account of the rise of it CHAP. IX To assert our Saviour's Divinity does not dishonour him by making him comprehensible An Account of the saying of the Council of Antioch which the Authour alledges The Arians were never the less such for all their subscriptions to the Council of Nice A Vindication of Athanasius's flying to Julius the Roman Bishop and of Julius An account of the Council of Sardica Athanasius purged from his pretended Crimes A Schism between the two Churches did not arise from the disagreement of the Arians with the Orthodox at Sardica The troubles in the Church not imputable to the Orthodox Doctrine The prevailing of the Orthodox Doctrine did not proceed from the greatness of the Bishop of Rome Nor from the ignorance of the Ancient Roman Church A Vindication of Theodosius's Decree for the establishing the Orthodox Doctrine Of Charity to Hereticks from the example of Alexander The ill consequences of Heresies though not foreseen yet imputable to it Arian and Socinian Expositions of Scripture unreasonable to make the greater compellations of Christ stoop to the smaller CHAP. X. Of the Authour's Reflection on Dr. Hammond's Treatise of Fundamentals The Doctrine of the Trinity agrees with the Authour's first qualification of matter of Faith viz. To be sufficiently understood by the meanest capacity His second qualification considered that it must be the express word of God The Trinity proved by Scripture His third qualification considered Eternal Life promised to the belief of our Saviour's Divinity The use and necessity of Creeds in the Church The promise of eternal Life not only made to the belief of the Resurrection Why this promise was made so expresly to that CHAP. XI The necessity of Mens rising with the same numerical Bodies evinced from Reason Scripture and Antiquity The Authour 's first Argument answered His second His third His fourth ENQUIRY II. The Orthodox extend Faith no further than the Scripture does They do not exalt Faith above holiness Taking hold on Christ by Faith imputed righteousness c. not phrases purely Calvinistical but used by the Ancients We do not advance Faith above Charity How far our Charity to Hereticks is to extend The behaviour of the Ancient Christians to Hereticks We do not advance Faith above Reason The use of the word mystery in prophane Authours in Scripture and Fathers We use the word in the same sense it is used in Scripture ENQUIRY III. The unfairness of the Authour in laying his charge against the Orthodox and making it out against the Papists The Doctrine of the Trinity not prejudicial to our Lord's honour in hindring the progress of the Gospel Not prejudicial to the Tranquillity of Christians Minds nor to the peace of the Church Conclusion That the Church of England does recommend the three Creeds to our Belief The Authour's Arguments to the contrary answered His reflection on the late Convocation considered CONTENTS OF THE REFLECTIONS ON THE New Edition THE Authour's excuses for his first Book considered His new Explication of the Trinity The Council of Alexandria did not condemn the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia proper words to explain what is meant by them and the Latins did understand by one what the Greeks did by the other The same shewn of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Persona None but the Hereticks refused these words The Doctor 's Explication of the Trinity downright Sabellianism How Sabellius Explained the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not explained by the Ancients by being the Wisdom of the Father Nor the Holy Ghost by being an Energy Neither St. Austin nor Dr. Sherlock of our Author's Opinion AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE THE Authour in this by as much as can be gather'd from him goes upon two Arguments to overturn the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity the first is Because as he pretends the Disputes about this have been the decaying of Christianity and the prevailing of Mahometanism in the East the second is Because as he says this Doctrine is contrary to the great Simplicity in which the Gospel was deliver'd and which it does recommend In the proof of the first of these he spends half his Preface and indeed has got through four of his long Columns before he comes to any thing that looks like a Conclusion from his Premises Soon he is admiring the swift Progress of Christianity through the World notwithstanding the Power and Malice of its Adversaries and the Meanness of its Propagators and soon again he is as humble an Admirer of the good fortune of Mahomet's Religion and withal makes this most
truly pious design to revive Christianity Thirdly The Method he took to propagate his Religion by Fire and Sword for he had no sooner Conquered any City or Country but the poor wretched Inhabitants were forced to abnege their former Religion and to embrace his Forgeries or else were immediately to be butcher'd by his Souldiers Fourthly But the great causes of all which provoked God to suffer the Candlesticks to be removed from these Churches were the great decay of Piety in the World and the many Errours and Superstitions which had then crept into the Church whose Doctrine and practice had then so vastly degenerated from those of the Christians in the first Ages That Love and Charity which was so exemplary in the Primitive Professors was turned into Pride and Contention and a pertinacious obstinacy in disputes and desire of Innovations the former strictness and circumspectness of Life was changed after the peace in the Church under Christian Emperours into dissoluteness and Luxury and the other concomitants of those Vices Errours and Superstitions were every day crowing into the Church the Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers for the Dead Reliques Doctrine of Merits Prayers in an unknown Tongue Purgatory Prohibition of Marriage in the Clergy Monastick Life Superstitious Meats Vests Tonsures c. all which were brought in before or in some measure used by this Age and Image-Worship which our Authour mentions began a little to appear though it was far from setling till the second Council of Nice A. D. 787. So that our Authour is a little out in his Chronology when he says the then late establishment of Image-worship gave a tempting opportunity to the Impostor c. For that Impostor set on foot his Doctrines above 150 years before the estblishment of Image-worship For from the year 622 the year of Mahomet's slight sometime after he had disseminated his Doctrines to the year 787. are precisely 165 years and so much the Authour is out of his Argument and his Chronology unless he will allow the Arabian Doctor by his prophetick Spirit to have foreseen so far the determinations of this Council And now I hope I have made it appear that the determinations of the first Council of Nice about the Trinity which was 300 years before Mahomet gave no more incouragement to his Imposture than the second Council of Nice did which was 150 years after and if I have done so I am very well contented I have but one word more to say in vindication of the Orthodox Belief from this aspersion which is That I do not find any of her Professors to have been Abettors of Mahomet's Doctrine but I wish our Authour's Friends among the Heterodox could say so much for we read that there assisted him in his Forgeries one Sergius a Nestorian and Johannes Antiochenus an Arian Nay 't is a report commonly received that Servetus borrowed his Heresy from the Mahometans in Africa so that it seems a Professor of the Arian Doctrine did assist in composing the Alchoran and the Alchoran did conduce to the reviving of Arianism and now let the Reader judge which have contributed more the Orthodox or the Hereticks to the propagation of Mahomet's Religion As to his Vnchristian assertion that Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith which the Vniversity have Condemned in their Decree it may be expected I should say something to that but that is an expression so horrid in all Christian Ears that it needs no Antidote 't is a Blasphemy so loud and palpable that it exacts rather the Iron of the Hangman than the Answer of a Christian. Blessed Jesus that ever thy holy Religion should be thus vilified that a Christian should assert that such a profligate Wretch that carried on his Impostures by Villainy and Lewdness that tolerated in his Followers Murders and Thefts Rapes and Sodomies and was himself most eminent in all these wickednesses that he should be said by a Christian to profess all the Articles of thy holy Religion which commands the utmost goodness and purity both of Body and Soul II. The second Argument which our Authour goes upon to invalidate the Doctrine of the Trinity is because as he would insinuate it is contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel And in proving of this he uses as much prevarication and shuffling as if he had been trained up in a College of Jesuits For when he should shew his Reader how much the Doctrine of three Persons being one God is contrary to the Gospel simplicity he runs off from this to several other corruptions which have happened to the Gospel and which the maintainers of this Doctrine are not the least concerned to answer for 'T is one of the excellencies of the Christian Religion as he well observes that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them that is that the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are such as the meanest capacities may understand the Truths which it does deliver are not strange Philosophical notions or expressed in high Rhetorical strains or as the Apostle speaks in enticing words of Mans Wisdom But how does he prove that it may not be so for all the Doctrine of the Trinity Why the Authour is pretty civil as to that point and because he would not be too hard upon the Orthodox turns the point of his Argument against the old Gnosicks and fetches a Text or two out of St. Paul to confound them If any one preach another Jesus whom we have not preached you might well bear with him or as the Authour translates it could you well bear with him 2 Cor. 11. 1. Which by the way is a false translation for there is no Authority for any such reading by way of Interrogation The words in the Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye might well bear without the word him And if our translation were to be altered it ought rather to be you might well bear with me for that is most agreeable to the Apostle's design for he is desiring the Corinthians to excuse his boasting as v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I pray bear with me The like he endeavours to prove from Gal. 1. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel which is not another If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel let him be accursed From all which he draws these four Theses First 'T is possible the Gospel may be so disguised by Innovations that though it still retain its genuine Principles it may appear another Secondly 'T is possible such Innovations may be so obvious that people may discover them Thirdly Those that depart from such Innovators are not Schismaticks but faithful Believers Fourthly Be the Innovators never so high in Authority we must be so far from paying them Implicit Faith that we must not pay them ordinary Charity but hold them accursed The Author has been here at a great deal
Thebais and Libya to receive Arius and Euzoius with willing Minds as being restored they say by so great a Synod and they write another to the Emperour to give him an account of what was done and to desire him to see them actually restored Arius then comes to Alexandria but Athanasius who understood all the Fraudulence of the proceeding looking on him still as excommunicate avoided him as an execrable Person and would not restore him Then Arius strives by infusing his Heresie into the People of the City to raise a Tumult thereby to attain his end that way but this not succeeding Eusebius procures a Letter from the Emperour to command him to it This Athanasius civilly answers and informs him That Arius being anathematized by a general Council he cannot be restored by him again This very much inflames the Emperour not well understanding the merits of the Cause and occasions an angry Letter from him in which he threatens his deposing him from his Bishoprick upon refusal This Opportunity Eusebius gladly improves and suborns one Ischyras a rascally Fellow that had usurped the Priesthood without Ordination in the Diocess of Athanasius but being detected by him flies to Eusebius in Nicomedia who receives him as a Priest and promises him a Bishoprick if he would accuse Athanasius which having done he did afterwards procure him Then were trumpt up the Forgeries of the broken Chalice and the cutting off Arsenius's Hand and using it for Magick c. which were the subject of the Debates of the Arian Council at Tyre and have of late made such a noise in our Socinian Pamphlets Now in all this here is no real Disobedience at all of the Bishop to the Emperour as the Authour would pretend for the Emperour will not have him restored unless he be of the opinion of the Nicene Council and besides he does not think it a Point in which he ought to meddle but leaves it to the Council which he thought Orthodox when it was mostly Arian But Athanasius finds that Arius's Creed was drawn up so ambiguously that any one might see he designed nothing but shuffling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the Test of Arianism was left out and Arius still as fond of his Doctrines as ever and moreover that the Council which pretended to restore him was but Provincial at best and most of the Orthodox in it retired and the Eusebian Party taking off his Excommunication by a trick and therefore thinks he may very well upon these considerations refuse to restore him notwithstanding the Imperial Letters And truly he or any other Bishop that would take into his Flock such a Wolf as this upon these terms would little deserve the name of a good Pastour and he that should refuse to do so might justify himself from disobedience to any Earthly Authority whatsoever He that will see more of Athanasius's Vindication may see it in his own Apologies I have been more full in the Vindication of this good Man because the scurrillous Pens of late have made it their business after so many hundred years to calumniate him again The next thing that the Authour offers is against the word Consubstantial and this from a saying of Socrates Lib. 1. Cap. 18. not Book the 2. as he quotes it in which the Authour would have him to condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a word which did trouble Mens Minds and which the Bishops themselves did not understand Now Socrates is Friend enough to the Orthodox Cause every one knows which makes the Authour brand him with the name of partial and in many places shews he had no dislike to the word Consubstantial but he has one fault which is common to many Historians that he makes too many remarks upon his Relations and oftentimes in matters the true reason of which we was far from understanding But 't is no great matter what the Historians remarks are 't is their Relations and not their reflections which we are to value and yet after all Socrates does not in the least reflect upon the Orthodox Doctrine or the test of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shews his dislike indeed to those that made too nice explications of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that crumbled this question into many little Cavils and raised upon it some nice disputes and therefore they that did so were to blame but they might believe what was signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any of these Cavils and they might without any of these Niceties stand up for the word as being thought by the wisdom of the Council to be the best Test to discover the Arian Heresy Then the Authour applauds himself mightily in fansying that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the same now as it was in Athanasius's time because he in his Dialogues explains this Mystery by the similitude of three Men who are one in their common nature and three in their individual Capacity this the Authour would have to infer a Tritheism and as well to justify the Heathen Polytheism as the Trinity Now these Dialogues though bound up with Athanasius's Works are not his but according to the Opinion of most learned Men are Maximus's but however there is nothing in them which would infer any thing like that which the Authour pretends to He and several other of the Fathers give many Illustrations to explain as far as possible to humane understandings this Mystery but yet they as all other similitudes must not be strained farther than the Authours designed them 't is enough if they bear that Analogy or likeness which are there singled out not that these should have in their whole nature an uniform similitude Now Peter James and John three Individual Men and yet agreeing in one common nature Man are a very good illustration of the Blessed Trinity for as Peter is Man James is Man and John is Man and yet there is but one Man that is one common nature of humanity so the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there is but one God that is one common Divine Nature but yet this illustration does not bear an universal Analogy with the Trinity for Peter James and John agree only in the same common collective nature and are only collectively one but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially one So that I say this illustration of the Trinity may be very good though it does not hold universally 't is enough if the three Persons in each agree in a general Unity though they differ in the specification of this Unity 't is enough if both are three and yet one though one be by a collective and the other an essential Oneness So Bishop Priest and Deacon agree in one common Office of Ministry in general and this is brought by the same Father as a farther illustration of this Mystery and so may any other three Species of a Genus or any
three Individuums of a Species but then they must be carried no further than it was meant this illustration should go for to expect an universal similitude is rather to expect a sameness than a likeness And now if Men should take the boldness to rack and tenter and sport themselves with the Similes and Parables in the New Testament of our Saviour's Church Doctrines Kingdom and the like as our late Socinian Pamphlets have done these of the ancient Fathers I dare say they might with as great ease ridicule the whole Christian Religion as they do this Doctrine of the Trinity As to what the Authour says of the word Mystery which he calls an impregnable Fort and the Papists Cock-Argument for Transubstantiation and his saying the contradictions are no less in Transubstantiation than the Trinity this is all bold and impudent Assertion without proof and therefore requires no Answer but if any one has a mind to see all these Objections for ever silenced let him read the two incomparable Dialogues printed in the time of the late Popish Controversy and Entituled the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Well but the Authour says if the Trinity be a Mystery why should we dispute any longer about it To dispute concerning a Mystery says he and at the same time acknowledge it a Mystery is a contradiction as great as any in the greatest Mystery I see our Authour is all for contradictions and will have no Mystery without them I thought a Mystery had been an unintelligible Truth and not a contradictious falsity But however why should we not dispute concerning a Mystery If the Mysterious Truth be denied it is to be defended as well as other truths it is not the less a Truth because it is mysterious any more than a Conclusion in Algebra is not true because I do not understand it But besides such a truth has more reason to be contended for as it is of greater importance and such we have proved this Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be Indeed if Men did dispute about a Mystery as a Mystery there would be something in the Authour's Objection for then Men would pretend to understand something by their Disputes whose name imported it was not to be understood But there is no such thing in the Arguments of the Orthodox for the defence of the Trinity they do not dispute this Doctrine as a Mystery but as a Truth which in some measure may be understood they do not dispute about the modus of the Trinity which is unintelligible but about the existence of it which is a Truth can be understood they do not pretend to shew how they are Three in One but that they are Three in One. There is a vast difference between understanding how things are and that they are for a Man may understand there is such an Arts as Algebra by seeing Oughtred or Diophantus and yet understand nothing of the way of Reduction of Equation nor one tittle of the Rules of that Art But still the Authour will have this Doctrine a Mystery in his sense that is a falsity full of contradictions from the contrary determinations of Councils and the various expositions of others and by the wavering as he calls it of the Council of Sirmium which changed their Opinion and would have called in the Copies of one of their Creeds As to the contrary determinations of Councils that to the grief of the Christian Church is but too true if we may call the Arian Synods by that name for the Arian Heresy by God's Permission did so much prevail that by the Countenance of an Arian Emperour the World almost became Arian and then 't was an easy matter for the Bishops of that perswasion to form themselves into Assemblies and to declare what ever Orthodox Opinions they pleased for Heresy The Authour if he had said any thing to his purpose should have proved that the determinations of Orthodox Councils had been contrary one to another but what are the contradictions of the Hereticks to them Truth can be but one and the same though errour may be infinite and therefore the Conformity of the Orthodox Doctrines to one another shew their verity whilst the disagreement and clashing of the Heretical Creeds are an infallible proof of their falsity The Orthodox always very fairly stick to their old Test the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Hereticks are soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for neither Well but the Council of Sirmium has contradicted it self 'T is very true and 't is the misfortune or many Heretical Opiniators to do the same But by the way I am afraid the Arian Cause has but a very poor Patron of this Authour for when ever he has a mind to charge any slip or misdemeanour upon a Council he always singles out an Arian one for it He lately blamed the Arian Council at Seleucia for Tumult and now he charges one of the same stamp at Sirmium for Contradictions Now the matter at Sirmium stands thus The Arian Heresy about the year 357. had gotten large footing in the World and they began now to disdain the name of a Sect or Heresy and to affect the name of Catholicks and to this end would congregate in Councils not only to defend their own particular Tenets but also to condemn Heresies And upon this account 't was that they met at Sirmium in the foresaid year to condemn the Heresy of the Photinians who following Sabellius and Samosatenus would have Christ to have no being before the Conception of the Blessed Virgin This Heresy therefore they condemn and frame a Creed in opposition to it where are these words Those that shall say that the Son was from a no being before and from another substance and not from God or that there was a time when he was not those the holy and the Catholick Church doth esteem Aliens from her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Creed Socrates says was drawn up by Marcus Arethusius who was a notorious Arian Now these words 't is true were very pat against the Photinians and served to excellent good purpose for the condemnation of this Heresy But when they came to renew their quarrel against the Orthodox they found too late that they had in a manner given up their cause for here at one dash they had confounded all that Arius had been contending with his Bishop Alexander about Christ's being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a no being and that there was a time when he was not which though it served to silence Photinianism yet it totally would ruin the Cause of the Arians Therefore they set themselves to work anew to frame another Creed that might be more Arian which they publish in Latin in which every thing relating to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is left out and in which they declare they are ignorant what our Saviour
plainly enough described there but if the Authour wo'n't see them the Doctor can't find him Eyes and description too But let us see how the Authour has mended the matter in his handling the point But instead of giving us an enumeration of the particulars he has given us only some marks and qualifications of things to be believed which too if he had done it fairly enough would have been pretty well 1. And now the first qualification he makes for matters of Faith is That they be easily understood by the meanest capacity I hope the Authour does not mean that Men must understand every thing as far as they believe them and to believe nothing but what they have a perfect knowledge of for this would be to exclude all Faith out of the World and to make Men Scepticks in every thing but of which they had demonstrative Science If he means that there are no Fundamental Truths to be believed but what the meanest capacity can adequately comprehend the express modus of them this I am sure is more than ever he will be able to make out however he may attempt it As for what he brings of the poor having the Gospel preached unto them and that the light of the Gospel cannot be hid but to those whose eyes are blinded and of the simplicity which is in Christ these Texts the Authour has foisted in to no purpose and contrary to their intent and meaning for they are spoke only to shew that the Christian Religion did not consist in Pharisaical Glosses or deep Philosophical niceties knowable only by a few learned Men but in plain truths which any one of a mean capacity might perceive as far as was requisite for his Salvation And one of these I have shewn the Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be as to the belief of its existence in the Answer to the Preface But the Authour will have the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 10. 9. to judge it a great defect of Faith if there were any difficulty in it For my part I see nothing like such a judgment in this place of the Apostle that it argues a defect of Faith to have the matter of it difficult to believe Nay the reasoning of the Apostle there seems to be grounded upon the contrary to this If thou shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Christ from the dead thou shalt be saved That is if thou shalt believe such a wonderful thing as Christ's Resurrection which is so strange and difficult to be believed by all carnal Men thou shalt be saved But why should difficulty make a defect of Faith it has been generally looked upon as a great increase and exaltation of Faith when the matter has been hard to believe as in Abraham who believed against hope and whose Faith for this very reason the Authour did extraordinarily celebrate a Chapter or two before however he may have forgot himself now The calling of the Gentiles indeed he allows to be something of a Mystery and difficult to believe under the Gospel but he is very positive that in no other word of Scripture we meet the least intimation that Faith hath any hard task for the understanding to perform But I thought there might have been some difficulty in the belief of the Gospel it self by reason of our Saviour's calling his Religion a Yoke wherein Mens Carnal Reasons were to be subjugated as well as their Affections by his being set for the fall of many by reason that the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews and to the Greeks foolishness c. all which plainly shews there is at least some intimation of a difficulty for Faith under the Gospel 2. His second Qualification is That matter of Faith must be the express word of God This rule of the Authour holds well enough yea so well that I am afraid he will never stand by it when it comes to the Issue For if the Socinians or other Opposers of Christ's Divinity would once come to be determined by express Texts of Scripture that controversy would quickly be at an end For there are so many express Texts against them that we cannot desire more and these they will own are express as to the word and letter but then are forced to put false and strained Interpretations upon them to make them look another way For our Saviour is expresly called God Joh. 1. 1. The word was God Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Thomas calls him my Lord and my God So Heb. 1. 8. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever So the Divine Attributes are ascribed to him Omnipresence Joh. 14. 23. Matth. 28. 20. and 18. 20. Omnipotence Phil. 3. 21. Rev. 1. 8. Immutability Heb. 1. 11 12. Omniscience Joh. 21. 17. Joh. 11. 25. Rev. 11. 23. So likewise the Holy Ghost is called expresly God Act. 5. 4. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost thou hast not lied unto men but unto God v. 4. So are the Divine Attributes ascribed unto him As Omnipresence Psal 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. Eternity 1 Cor. 11. 10. Joh. 15. 26. Omniscience 1 Cor. 11. Omnipotence Luk. 11. 20. Luk. 1. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 11. These are not the tenth part of the places in Scriture which may be alledged for the proof of the Trinity besides that express one to prove a Trinity in Unity 1 John 5. 7. though without that there is enough to establish this Doctrine in the minds of all unprejudiced Men. And to see what work the Socinians make to invalidate these proofs what jejune and foolish interpretations they pass upon them so contrary oftentimes to the whole design and tenour of the Authours this would make any one think that they had taken up a Paradox to defend and were resolved to say any thing to maintain it rather than to be perfectly silent Well! but what if the relation between the written word and the rational consequence be so remote that none but a skilful Herald can drive its Pedigree Why this is not the case of the Doctrine of the Trinity for all the Authour's hast For first this is plainly asserted in that famous place of St. John 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Authority of this Text is good for all our Adversaries appeal to some Manuscripts to the contrary and we have St. Cyprian to vouch for it who is older than any Manuscripts they can pretend to But secondly supposing this Text was wanting in Scripture the Doctrine of the Trinity is plain enough for all that We have express assertion there that each of the three Persons are God by the places for instance we just now alledged and we are likewise assured as well from natural reason as from Scripture that God is but one Hear O Israel thy God is but one God Deut. 6. 9. Now any Man without any great skill in Heraldry or Logick
perhaps taedâ luceret in illâ Quâ stant arden◠and might as deservedly it may be have followed his Friends Gentilis and Servet out of the World the same way Nor can it reasonably be thought that any Sanctions can be too severe to maintain such important Points of our Faith against the Blasphemy of Hereticks and it would shew our State to have too little regard for Religion to punish the defacing of our Coin with Death and to have no Punishment for those that shall presume to adulterate our Faith Fourthly His next charge of Innovations upon us is That we advance Faith above Reason and against it But here is not a word of the Proof of this He tells us indeed that we must not believe God's word any further than we have reason to believe it is God's word and that it is unreasonable to believe a Mystery and that is all he says to this Point 1. Now as to the Believing in God's word we never say but that our Belief is grounded upon better Reason than that of the Anti-trinitarians is for all their great pretence to it and I am sure our Arguments from Scripture are a thousand times more rationally deduced than our Adversaries are and as to Antiquity they have not the least pretence to that Indeed we do not pretend to understand all that our Reason tells us we ought to believe and I think it is more reasonable to think we should not understand God's Nature than that we should 2. As to our believing a Mystery that is not less to be believed upon that account if we are sure it is true for we do not believe it because it is a Mystery but because it is a Truth Well but he says this word Mystery has not the same sense in the Scripture and other ancient Authours as we put upon it As to the use of this word among prophane Authours they understand by it a Truth which is known only to some few Men and is not further to be divulged And so principally the Rites of Ceres and Proserpine were called Mysteries because they were esteemed to be of so great Sacredness as in no ways to be revealed And therefore Suidas derives the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from shutting the Mouth But then by Analogy all other things that were kept secret were called Mysteries So Tully speaking of his Letters says which have so much of Mysteries in them that I ought not to trust them to my Amanuenses And in the holy Scripture there are other senses of the word than what the Authour mentions for every thing that is called a Mystery there is not a spiritual Truth wrapped up in a sensible nor yet only a Truth hidden from some Ages which two senses only the Authour will allow For sometimes a thing altogether incomprehensible as the Trinity is is called a Mystery 1 Tim. 3. 16. Without controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. Where the incomprehensible Truth of Christ's Incarnation is called a great Mystery And therefore says an ancient Father admirably well Great is the Mystery of Godliness not that it is unknown but because it is incomprehensible for it exceeds all power both of Expression and of Vnderstanding This perhaps the Apostle calls a great Mystery in allusion to the Ceremonies of those Deities that were called Great far inconsiderable Mysteries in respect of this Thus Diana who was worshipped with these Mysterious Rites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 19. 27. and Proserpine and Ceres that were worshipped with the Eleusinian Mysteries were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their Rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athen. Now whereas these Mysteries and Deities were great only by their not being discovered this Mystery of our Saviour in a more peculiar manner is great by its being incomprehensible Now the definition which St. Chrysostom gives of a Mystery takes in all these notions of the Word A Mystery is that which is unknown and secret and has also a great deal wonderful in it and a great deal incomprehensible But the Authour says 't is more than a hidden Mystery that is in his phrase a plain contradiction that the same thing should be hid and open to the same Persons and who denies it if he mean in the same respect But a thing may be hid in one respect and open in another 'T is open and reveal'd to us That our Saviour's Divinity is de facto united to his Humanity but the express modus how this Union is performed is hid to us That Father Son and Holy-Ghost are one God is revealed or open to us but the manner of their Hypostatical Union is altogether hid That these things are so is plain and open to us but how they are so is altogether unintelligible And this I think is no Contradiction ENQUIRY III. What Damages or Advantages have ensued upon the Changes and Additions which latter Ages have made in the Gospel THere need little be said to this Chapter because I hope I have made it in some measure appear That the Doctrine of the Trinity and particularly of the Divinity of our Saviour is no Addition made to the Gospel but is that which was first delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles and therefore this Supposition of the Authour 's being false whatever Conclusions he draws from it without any more ado will fall of themselves But because he has before reckoned the Doctrine of the Trinity among the Papal Corruptions or as he speaks the Athanasian among the Romish Doctrines and by the Tenour of his whole Book has been proving this Doctrine an Innovation though he do not particularly mention it here but only Innovations in general I shall therefore follow him in his Method and shew That this Doctrine has in no ways occasioned those Damages and Corruptions in the Church which he would seem to lay to its charge and which 't is apparent those Papal Doctrines he mentions have He tells us there have ensued upon these Changes and Additions I. Damages II. Advantages The Damages which have ensued he says are 1. To our Lord's honour 2. To private Christians 3. To the Christian Church in general The Damages which he would have to proceed from these Innovations to our Lord's honour First Because they make him Capricious and humoursome by commanding things to be believed without reason Secondly Because they hinder the progress of the Gospel Now how far the Romish Corruptions deserve this censure I shall not examine but I am afraid the Authour will have a difficult task to prove this upon the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity or the Divinity of our blessed Saviour I have before shewn how unreasonable it is to expect we should be able to give an account of the true Reason of all God's positive Laws and how impudent it is for Men to refuse their Obedience to them because they do not understand those motives
Convocation and therefore he penned it with less caution than was necessary for what was to be exposed to every vulgar Eye Now is not this a pretty excuse after so long hammering out The Doctor writes a Socinian Book wherein he condemns the belief of nineteen parts in twenty of all the Christians in the World only to enlarge the minds of the Convocation with a more comprehensive Charity This would have been a pretty piece of comprehensive Charity indeed to have damned all the Members of the Catholick Church for so many Ages for worshipping a Creature for God out of pure tenderness to Socinian Consciences Well but he penned it with less caution than if it had been to be exposed to every vulgar Eye Now I should have thought it had been requisite to be more exact in composing what was to be viewed by the more judicious and that it had been a little too presuming to offer a parcel of uncorrected stuff to so learned an Assembly I am sure 't is but a course Complement of the Authour 's to those learned Gentlemen to write what was to be read by them at that rate as he would not care should be view'd by every vulgar Eye But though we should let this Excuse pass for some of his uncouth Expressions or little slips in his Quotations and Chronologies c. I am afraid it will never bear him out for all the premeditated Heresy of his Book Though he be ready to own that there are some scattering Sphalmata in that Treatise yet I believe he would be loth to have it thought one Total and Uniform Erratum Are all his Chapters about the Socinian Notions of Faith nothing but slips in the penning Are so many Arguments against our Saviour's eternal Generation nothing else Are all his scandalous Reflections upon the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Assertors of it his malicious Censures upon so many good and holy Counsels only owing to the want of a little caution in the writing If this be so 't is impossible to know any Author's mistakes from his general Design for if it was not the Doctor 's design to invalidate the Truth of Christ's Divinity he designed nothing at all for there is not one Chapter in his whole Book but some how or other tends that way But he designed he says only to communicate his Book to the Members of the Convocation this is a very fine excuse indeed to make that venerable Body whose business it was to detect and condemn all Heresies to become Patrons to his but however this is but an usual piece of Socinian Confidence not unlike that of the Editor of the Racovian Catechism who dared to dedicate so Heretical a piece to so Orthodox a Member of the Church as King James the First But why this to the Convocation Whom of his stamp did he find there that he could dare to communicate such a Book to This is such an infamous scandal to those great Representatives of our Church that he can never atone for to presume that ever they would steer their Actions by the direction of such an Heretical Treatise as that What would a Foreigner upon reading this Plea be apt to think of the Members of that August Assembly that the Doctor should design that Book for their use which the University as soon as detected condemned to the Fire But after all What constat is there that he designed this to be handed only to those Members Which by the way can be no excuse neither for such a private handing to all the Members of such a publick Body gathered from all the different parts of the Nation is as effectual a spreading of his Heresy as any publication whatsoever But I say What constat is there that he designed only this Why truly none at all but only his saying so and how far his word will go in this matter I cannot tell 'T is plain the Copies of his Book were not essayed to be spread till the Lent after the Convocation was broke up The Gentlemen in Oxford to whom he delivered Copies were not all Members of that Body and the 500 which Litchfield in his Deposition said he printed were more far than the number of which the Convocation did consist Those Copies which were sent to the Bookseller and afterwards upon the dislike of the Book recalled were not I presume all designed to be sold to Convocation Men. Nay if the good Providence of God and the watchful Care of some of our excellent Governours in the University had not interposed we might have had every yound Lad in the University to have gotten one of these wicked Books into his Study So that 't is ridiculous evasion for the Author to say in the Title page of this Edition that the Book is now first published by him for he published it as much as he could before he put the Copies of it into the Publishers hands which was all he could do for his part and that they were stopped there was owing to the Intervention of other Authority And so much for the Doctor 's excuses to pass by his saucy Treating of the late Convocation by the reproachful names of Uncharitable Stubborn Stiff c. which is such Billingsgate stuff as is like calling Whore first to fasten those ill names upon them to avoid if he can the deserved one of Heretick upon himself I now come to speak a word or two to the Errors of this New Edition And those I think mostly lie within his Chapter of the Trinity which is the only New one in his Book for all his others are but the old Heresy pared away and something better varnished over than before And indeed in this Chapter there is something New for there is such an explication of the Trinity as no mortal ever heard before Here is a mixture of Platonism Hobbism and Sabellianism with some other peculiar Notions of the Doctor 's own jumbled together Quantum mutatus ab illo Is this the Author that has been declaiming so much against Mysteries and the explaining of Mysteries and has at last stuffed us out a Chapter with so much mystical Jargon But after all this second Notion of the Doctor 's is no farther distant from Socinianism than a Trinominal Deity is different from him that is personally one without such nominal Distinction or just so much as the Doctrine of Sabellius differed from that of Samosetanus or Photinus Now the first thing that the Doctor does to advance this Notion is to be angry with the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substance and Person He says it was proposed in the Council of Alexandria That all Persons should forbear those Terms tho' I do not find any such thing was proposed there There were indeed some Rules given for caution in using them because they said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used in Scripture and the Apostle used the word 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter but otherways they decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius that we may not through want of words call God under three Names but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what other use do we desire to make of them than this Indeed we will allow the Doctor that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done or more His good Council of Sirmium published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God and the famous Council of Ariminum did the like Next he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rendring it Substance which bears too great a Cognation with matter But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically when we know 't is used so as we do when it is used properly so that 't is a silly exception against this word to say it is Metaphorical for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically ten times as many words as we have would not serve us But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is all the harm that is done then Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike and therefore they must have the same signification Aquinas defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being by which it is by its self and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject and Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that subsists by its self which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence and so Suidas to the same purpose So that if the Latins and the Greeks understand the same thing as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia So again I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona if the same thing be understood by both Words as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand Indeed the Latins at first did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it because they generally translated that word by Substantia who by the scantiness of their Language could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance and not by Persona or Substantia and therefore to assert three Hypostasis was the same with them as to make three Gods Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word did occasion some contention for a while till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 and then they came to a right understanding and ever after both Latins and Greeks used the word alike Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis as Acacius and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople and the Eusebians in the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia but that I hope will be no prejudice against it for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery we only ought to take care to understand and them aright which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity which because he will not have it be mysterious he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature for he says the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth There are Three Persons that bear witness c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration but whatever we may expect from him hereafter since this wonderful Illumination I am sure what he has given us in this Chapter is far enough from it He tells us That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind Reason and Power the Reason or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind the Father both which are imperfect unless perfected by Power or Action which is the Holy-Ghost Now is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable both to the Holy Scripture and the Church of England is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame which he so boasts of They are old Materials indeed as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp but neither older nor newer than their Heresies For I pray what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's The Sabellians taught That the Father Son and Holy-Ghost were the same so that there were Three Names in One Person and as in a Man there is Body Soul and Spirit or Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Body is as it were the Father the Soul the Son and that which is the Spirit in Man is the Holy-Ghost in the Deity All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity is That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture Nay the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal for Body Soul and Spirit are more distinct than Mind Reason and Operation So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism as he pretends he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie But after all what can we make of our Author's Trinity which any Vnitarian will not agree to Mind Reason and Action why are not all these in every Man and every rational Being as well as in God and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings Besides Mind Reason and Energy or Action are but divers Modus of the same thing Mind is the rational Principle simply considered Reason is the same Soul considered Discursive or Reasoning and Action or Energy is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence There every Person is by a proper personal difference distinguished from