if he had said there have been thirty Opinions in this Matter But tho' this be inartificial enough if no more yet that which is more grievously suspicious is that he calls the Catholick Faith but a meer Opinion and Perswasion of a Party * P. 31. The third Opinion saith his Lordship is that the Godhead by the Eternal Word the Second in the blessed Three dwelt in and was so inwardly united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ that by Virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person as our Soul and Body make one Man And that the Eternal Word was truly God and as such is worshipped and adored as the proper Object of Divine Adoration By those of this Perswasion the Term Person became applied to the Three which the Scripture only calls by the Name of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost on design to discover those who thought that these Three were only different Names of the same Thing But by Person is not meant such a Being as we commonly understand by that Word a complete intelligent Being but only that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other two So again †P. 32 33. This in general is the Sump of the received Doctrine That as there is but One God so in that undivided Essence there are Three that are really different from one another and are more than three Names or three outward Oeconomies * P. 42. or Modes and that the Second of these was in a most intimate and unconceivable manner united to a perfect Man so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of Christ § 3. And now perhaps some may wonder what Exceptions lie against this but there are indeed several and those of great Importance First That he calls it an Opinion only like that of the Socinian and Arian while yet he intimates it to be the Doctrine of the Church The truth is as his Lordship has stated it it has many meer Opinions in it but they are such as are not in the Faith and so ought not to have been represented as the Doctrine of the Church But if his Lordship had taken it for the Christian Faith either as it is or ought to have been stated by him he ought not to have set it out as a meer Opinion or Perswasion of a third Party For a meer partial Opinion cannot be a Divine or Catholick Faith whether we take Opinion for the Act or Object of Opinion For the Act is meer Humane Conjecture without certain grounds and objectively Opinions are Propositions that have no certain but only probable appearance which therefore no Man is bound in Conscience to assert or stand by for want of certain Evidence and Authority But Catholick Faith objectively taken consists of certain Principles made certainly evident by Divine Revelation to the Holy Catholick Church and thereupon to be relied on and asserted against all temptations in hopes of Life Eternal Now these Principles thus received were the Faith of the Universal Church not the Opinion of any Party in the beginning and therefore the contrary Parties and Opinions arising since of what Cut or Size soever pertain not to this Holy Body in which the Faith of the Trinity truly stated is as essential as the Faith of the Unity and as fundamental in the Christian Professions Now would it not be very Theological to say That all the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles the whole Synagogue of the Jews and Church of Christ were ever of this Opinion That there is one God only the Creator and Governour of all things That the Apostles and all Christians are of Opinion that Jesus is the Christ That it is our Opinion That he came down and dwelt among us died rose again and ascended into Heaven and shall come to Judgment at the general Resurrection Just so absurd it is to call the Catholick Faith of God's Church the Opinion or Perswasion of a Party 'T is true indeed his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine but this term is equivocal and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers But what I require is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular Men's private Opinions but originally committed to the Charge and Custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive Body Whereas his Lordship only lays down this Notion or form of Faith †P. 26. See Discour 3. That we believe points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed to us in Scripture which is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private fancies and contradictory Opinions since each Man's Faith is his Perswasion that what he believes for a Doctrine is revealed in Scripture Whereas the Act of a Christian Faith believes such Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from the certain Evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual Perswasions but by a primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition The deviation from which Rule and Notion to private Opinions and Perswasions is the cause of all Heresies and by its consequent Divisions naturally tends to the ruine of the true Christian and Catholick Faith I will not however at present descend into that thicket of Controversie What Rules private Persons are bound to in the learning and professing the Christian Faith but whosoever will arrive to a maturity of Judgment and Knowledge herein must betake him †P. 63. to the exploded Rule of Vincentius Eirineâ—â— and take that for fundamental Doctrine which hath been received for such in all Ages Places and Churches A Rule very practicable and easie since there are sufficient Memorials of the Primitive Antiquity delivering unto us their Creeds and Summaries of the then Catholick Faith which from them has uniformly descended to all Churches of the later Ages 'T is true indeed every single Man can believe no otherwise than he is privately perswaded but he that is not to be perswaded to receive the common and established Systems of the Faith of the Church Catholick upon the Authority on which it hath ever stood and yet stands or shall wantonly coin out other Articles for fundamental upon his own private Opinion belongs not to the Communion of the Church of Christ though he fansies his conceptions revealed in the Scriptures § 4. Secondly His Lordship is not clear in the point of Incarnation for he tells us that this third Opinion is that by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person Now here first we are not taught whether there were three or any one Person in the
God-head before the Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first †P. 32. in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature Yea this Description will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Union thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an incarnate Person or otherwise by this State of his Lordships Doctrine the Father Son and Holy Ghost may be conceived as one incarnate Person Whereas his Lordship well knows our Faith to be clear That the Eternal Word is personally distinct or a distinct Person from the Father and alone assumed the Humanity into a Personal Union with himself and so alone was the Person of Christ exceptively of the Father and the Holy Ghost from this Personality and Character § 5. Now if a Man would enquire into the Motives of this affected obscurity in his Lordship that leaves open a gap to so many Heresies his Lordship's Words would lead one to a conclusion or at least a fair jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature For he teacheth us that those whom the Church calleth Persons the Scripture only calls by the Names of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost Where that artificial Word only derogates from the propriety and fitness of the term Person as if the Scripture terms did not come up to it nor justifie it And if his Lordship will stand by the †P. 45. plain intention of his Words elsewhere he places Christ's Personality only in his Manhood in these words That Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Word So that the Word must be different from the Person in whom it dwelt which must be the Heresie of Sabellius Maâ—… or Nestorius In short while he 〈◊〉 the Canonical term of Person to contain some notion in it not imported in the Scripture terms he seems for that cause to censure it for that the Scripture does not come up so far as to teach three Persons but only Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost But when he says this third Opinion is than by the Incarnation God and Man truly became one Person I would fain know whether the term Person be proper for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no If not the Doctrine is to be blamed that teaches him to be truly one Person since the truth of a Character is the greatest propriety and if it be not true the Doctrine that teaches it is to be cashiered But if to avoid this it be true then I would fain be instructed whether the Church does not use the term Person in the same formal intention concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit when She calls them three Persons as She does when She calls Christ or the Son of God incarnate a Person For if She uses the term in the same formal intention then if the Christ be a proper Person so are the Father and Holy Spirit two other Persons properly and truly distinct in the sense of the Church but if the Church has one intention in the Term when applied to Christ 〈◊〉 God-man and another when applied to the Eternal Trinity let this be made out by just Authority and I have done § 6. But the Order of his Lordship's Discourse obliges me to break off a little from this Disquisition till the next Section where we must resume it For he tells us if we will believe him that the term Person by those of our Perswasion came to be applied to the three to discover those who thought that these three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now wherein lay their Heresie Why in this That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not three co-essential Persons really distinct which was the Catholick Faith instead of which they coined this pretence That those Names had not three distinct subjects of which they were predicates or denominations but only were three titles of God the Father who became incarnate and suffered for us Now hence it appears that their Heresie consisted in the denial of what was ever before received in the Church That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were three Persons And if so then is his Lordship's insinuation false and injurious that the term Person had its rise and occasion from Patripassianism and consequently is of a later Date that by this fraudulent Hypochronism the term and the sense of it may be taken for not Primitive and Traditional but a mere later and artificial invention Now to prove what I say to be true I am to produce authentick Testimonies Now in the Latin World the first I ever have read of that taught Patripassianism was Praxeas against whose Heresie herein Tertullian wrote and charged in for denying the Eternal Word to be a * Tert. ad Praxeam Non vis enim eum substantiâ—um habere in re per substantiae proprietatem ut res persona quaedam videri possit substantial and real Person which Tertullian though then a Montanist then asserted with the Church though his †Tert. ibid. Itaque Sophiam quoque exaudi ut secundam Personam conditam Sic Filius in suâ personâ profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae Novatian de Trinit secundam Personam efficiens terms and senses were sometimes very singularly odd concerning the production of the second Person In the Eastern Church several lapsed into the like Error the most famous of which was Sabellius from whom the Heresie was entitled Sabellianism which denied what that Church also had ever asserted That the Father Son and Holy Spirit were three Persons instead whereof they asserted them to be but one Person For the truth hereof I shall recite the Words †Athan. con Sabell Greg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Athanasius as beyond all Exception valid From whence it appears that the Sabellians asserted but one Person against that Plurality of Persons fore-acknowledged in the Church And now I leave it to his Lordship to explain how the denial of three Persons could be Apostasie as this Father calls it had not the Faith of them been before expresly avowed and received For Heresie is an opposition of true received Faith and Apostasie must be from an antecedent Profession So that the Doctrine of a Personal Trinity was not later than Patripassianism but the Original Faith Nor does his Lordship seem candid in concealing this which was the substance of that Heresie while he mentions only their teaching three Names of one thing or Person which was a Conâ—ectary or at least a Colour added to
as silly as it is false and debasing For Irenaeus the great mawl of Valentinianism defends our very Faith and Theology against that and all other Gnostick Heresies Nay and St. John one would think was a Preacher of our Doctrine And can any one be brought to believe that St. John and St. Irenaeus were tainted or drunk with the Lees of Aeonism Let Sandius therefore and his Lordship make what advantages they please against our Theories by their Valentinian Character there is no great danger The Lion's Hide covers a very tractable Animal For after all Sandius his Disguises his Father Arius his Thalea which he swaggered as descending from Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Grandsire Kalentine and his Symmystae Well to go along with his Lordship how came the poor old doating Fathers to nod thus His Lordship tells us 't was because 't was long before these Theories were well stated and settled And here I had been at a sad loss for an Epocha of this settlement if I had not by good fortune met with Dr. Burnet's Letter of Remarks upon the two strong Box Papers where he tells us thus It seems plain that the Fathers before the Council of Nice believed the Divinity of the Son of God to be in some sort inferiour to that of the Father and for some Ages after the Council of Nice they believed them indeed both equal but they considered these as two different beings and only one in Essence as three Men have the same Humane Nature in common among them and that as one Candle lights another so one flowed from another and after the fifth Century the Doctrine of one Individual Essence was received If you will be further informed concerning this Father Petau will satisfie you as to the first Period before the Council of Nice and the Learned Dr. Cudworth as to the second So then the Primitive Faith till the Nicene Council was That there were two Divinities or Deities one of the Father and another of the Son and that of the Son somewhat inferiour to that of the Father From the Council of Nice to the sixth Century they believed two or three different * What is this but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essences or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beings and these equal and no otherwise of one Essence than three Men that are of one common Nature But in the beginning of the sixth Century then their Eyes and Faith opened into one individual Essence and then I suppose the matter was settled Be this so for once what will it amount to That all the Fathers till the sixth Century were Polytheists and Idolaters not excepting the Nicene When a Man thinks upon this he must needs confess it not †Discours 3. p. 65. It were perhaps too invidious to send Men to Petavius to find in him how much the Tradition of the several Ages has varied in the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith only perhaps but for certain invidious to send Men to the Jesuit for a Calumny against the Primitives and were so to Dr. Cudworth to make his History of such Consequence But as for Petavius and his Admirers I think them all refuted by Dr. Bull beyond all possibility of a reply and as for the Arguments upon a Specifick Homoousion cited by Dr. Cudworth and others I have above accounted for their innocency § 11. and proved that though they argued from a specifick Homoousion through the Arian Cavils especially to avoid the Charge of Sabellianism yet they did not assert this alone as his Lordship charges them But now to come upon my Lord 's blind side In his Letter he says the Post Nicene Fathers were for an equality and used for their Theory the Simile of Candles In the Discourse we are upon he says the Simile of Candles gave rise to the Nicene form Light of Light and therefore must be used by the Ante-Nicene Fathers whom he asserts to be for an inequality In his Letter the specifick Homoousiasts are equalizers but in his Discourse the same are Subordinators But here again I would sain see the Simile of Candles produced among the Post-Nicene Homoousiasts to whom in his Letter my Lord assigns it Again in his Discourse the Theory of the Divine Wisdom and Love is said to be consequent or concomitant to the Doctrine of one individual Essence In the Letter this Doctrine commences with the sixth Century But all the Fathers that I have above-cited for the Theory of the Wisdom and Love of the Divine Mind especially § 21. § 23. lived long before his Lordship 's Epocha even in the fourth Century the very lowest and latest But since his Lordship is become a Father no wonder if he falls into contradictions too against himself and truth too for it seems 't is of ancient prescription with Men of that Character But in short I thought all these traduced Theories to have been ever settled and that settlement not begun but continued and defended only by the Councils and Fathers in several Ages according as seemed then most seasonable in respect of the Heresies and Sentiments then fermenting which occasions a seeming variety in forms of expression but no real difference in the Substance of their Faith that so Men herein might charge them with mutual or self-contradictions And yet that which we stand for is not every notion of every Father but what they all agree in and such are those Theories which his Lordship hath exposed as Exorbitant Let his Lordship prove their express contradictions each to other in these established and received Theories and then indeed he may more creditably expose his Father's Nakedness though that practice is but of ill and execrable prescription But as his Lordship has upbraided the Primitive Tradition of the Faith and the Scriptures in these Discourses and the forementioned Letter and loaded the Traditors with so much reproach he has done what in him lies to discourage Students from reading or regarding them and not only so but he has put such a Dagger into the hands of Deists and the open Enemies of all Revealed Religion as he himself will never be able to extort for who will believe the Church that she received the New Testament from Men divinely inspired when for Five Hundred Years after Christ her Principles were Polytheist and Idolatrous and she knew not the very first Rudiments of a true Faith and when she at last did so yet fell into divers silly conceits and Similes about it since scorned and rejected by the Critick Tribe § 42. And now I am resolved to end though his Divinity affords much more corrigible matter At the horrour whereof I leave him to God's Mercy and the Churches Prayers but his Writings of this stamp either to his own ingenuous Recantation or Canonical Censure FINIS