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
Saviour upon so pressing an occasion as their endeavouring to stone him did not assert his right of Divinity but contented himself with this Answer Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Let the Authour make out of this place what he can for his Opinion I am sure this place is as pregnant a proof of our Lord's Divinity as most places in the Bible are and whatever the Authour thinks he does exactly Answer to the Jews Question and tells them plainly he is what they expected the Messias to be the Son of God and very God For First in this place he tells them I and my Father are one v. 30. We two Persons are the same God and 't is plain That the Jews understood that to be his Meaning by their great rage which followed and their Answer to his Question why they should so barbarously use him after so many of his kind and saving Miracles For a good work we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because that thou being a Man makest thy self God And Secondly he gives them a reason why he might claim the title of God without Blasphemy whereas Rulers to whom the word of God came or who had their Power and Authority from him are called Gods in Scripture Psal 2. 1 6. Why has not he whom the Father has sanctified c. a better claim to this Title But besides he farther tells them That he was God in a more peculiar manner than they and in a proper and not metaphorical sense by a personal Union with the Father that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him This cannot be as the Socinians pretend by the Power of God co-operating in Christ for though 't is true that then God would be in him yet he could not be in God And besides to say he is in the Father and the Father in him denotes an Equality in each and his being in the Father in the same manner that the Father is in him And thus much to shew That our Saviour did assert his Divinity and prove it too upon this occasion and so consequently did not only require them to believe in his Word but in his Person also CHAP. VII Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured First Because Impertinent THE First Argument which the Authour uses to prove the Belief of Christ's Divinity to be impertinent is drawn from the Testimony of the Emperour Constantine in his Letter to Alexander and Arius I shall not now dispute whether this Letter in Eusebius be exactly the same which Constantine sent by Hosius into Alexandria though 't is certain many of these things were feigned or interpolated and though the same Letter be in Socrates yet probably he might have it only out of Eusebius and so it still may rely upon his sole Authority who was too great a Friend to the Arian cause to suffer any very favourable opinion to be passed upon its Adversaries But after all the Emperour does not here condemn the Belief of the Orthodox as impertinent but writes chiefly to temper the Hearts of Bishop Alexander and Arius who might be both perhaps something too warm and therefore exhorts them so affectionately to mutual Peace and Reconciliation because of the Quarrels and Schisms and other Evils which this hot and pertinacious Disputing was like to bring into the Church Indeed the Emperour calls the Controversie Arius had raised a little part of a Question and a Question not very necessary for truly the shuffling of Arius and the ambiguous terms he used made the Emperour think 't was only a Controversie about Words But however the Emperour looked upon Arius to be in the wrong as appears by what he says in his Letter to him And you Arius have inconsiderately asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what you ought not so much as to have thought of at first or when you had thought of it you should have passed it over in silence But what after all though the Emperour thought 't was no matter who was in the right Arius or Alexander and though he was of our Authour's Opinion That a right Belief of our Saviour's Divinity signified nothing Yet this is but the single opinion of one who was but a Novice in Christianity and 't is most reasonable to think that Alexander and the other Learned Bishops better understood the Importance of that Question than the Emperour whose Arms and other business of the Empire drew his Thoughts another way But besides afterwards when Constantine was better informed of the mischievous Consequences of the Arian Tenets he quickly alter'd his Sentiments of their Cause and did not then treat them with such soft and favourable Expressions After the conclusion of the Nicene Council in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria he triumphs mightily that Truth has at last prevailed and blesses himself at the Thoughts of the Arian Blasphemies ‖ How great says he and how execrable Contumelies Good God! be thou propitious and merciful to us do they irreligiously and wickedly cast upon our venerable Saviour our Hope and our Life and have not only impudently asserted things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures and our holy Faith but have openly professed That they believe them too In this Epistle he calls Arius impudent Minister of the Devil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in his other Letter to the Bishops and People he says it seems to him requisite that Arius and his Followers should be called Porphyrians that they may be known by their Name whose Manners they follow And there orders if any Book be found of Arius's that it be immediately burned That not only his Execrable Doctrine may be throughly rooted up but that there may be no Monument left to Posterity And now let the Authour make the best he can of Constantine's Judgment and if his other Arguments will support him no better than this his Cause I am afraid will soon come to the ground His next Argument is drawn from the similitude of the Sun That 't is not necessary the Traveller should understand the Dimensions of that Body when he goes by its Light so it is not at all necessary to know what our Saviour is to practise his Commands But this Argument I have already answered in the Fifth Chapter when I shewed what Influence the Belief of our Saviour's Divinity had upon Men's Lives But his Argument which follows is very fine and Philosophical That when he considers the great disproportion between our Earth and so many Worlds which he fansies to be from the innumerable Stars we discover with and without the Telescope each Star being the Sun or
Trinity And though all that is recorded of the belief of this Eunuch is that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God yet it is to be supposed that he believed in God the Father too or else Philip would not have baptized him and 't is also very reasonable to think that he that was so inquisitive about the sense of the Prophecies would not be less exact in endeavouring to understand the meaning of this strange form of his Baptism a Ceremony which was of so grand import But we find in latter times when History and Relations are more distinct that persons to be baptized were to recite their Creed into which they were throughly instructed before by a full explanation of all its Articles and if in case of extream danger they were like to die before they were sufficiently instructed though they were then baptized yet they were obliged to be sufficiently instructed afterwards if they recovered They were also particularly obliged to give their assent in Baptism to each single person of the Trinity upon each of the three immersions Now this trine immersion in token of the Faith in the Trinity St. Jerom says was observed by ancient Tradition in the Church and that they were thrice immerged that there might appear one Sacrament of the three Persons Nay the same Father tells us farther in another place that 't was a Custom in the Church for the forty days before Baptism that in the days of Lent they being baptized at Easter the Persons to be baptized should be throughly instructed in the Doctrine of the Trinity So that whereas it was the use of the Church in the most early times to instruct Persons to be baptized in the Doctrine of the Trinity and this Custom was deliver'd down to them by Tradition and it being not to be supposed but that Men of sense would enquire of their own accord into the meaning of the form of their Baptism which would lead them into the knowledge of this Doctrine for to be baptized into the name of any one is to be baptized into the belief and worship of him so that this does necessarily inform them of three Persons to be believed in and worshipped which three Persons they are sure can be but one God therefore these primitive Proselytes were instructed in the Mystery of the Trinity The next Argument the Authour urges is from a place in Justin Martyr in whose days the Authour acknowledges the Doctrine of our Saviours Divinity to be the Doctrine most received but because Justin says in a very soft expression there are some my Friends among us who profess him to be Christ and affirm him to be Man born of Men therefore they that did believe so were reckoned true Believers I know not but that the Authour was helped to this Argument by Faustus Socinus who brings this Authority of Justin to prove that many in that Age held Christ only to be meer Man But however if by Unbelievers the Authour means perfect Infidels that did not own the Doctrine of Jesus Christ or that he was sent of God but looked on him as a downright Imposter I do not think that those persons Justin speaks of were such or were reputed such in the Church at that time yet though they were not reckoned Unbelievers in that sense they were reckoned false Believers or Heterodox they were probably Ebionites or some such Hereticks that looked upon Christ as meer Man or else an Angel incarnate or something of that nature and though they were reputed Christians it was never as Orthodox ones though they might be thought to be in a state of Salvation yet they were always lookt upon to be in very gross Errours But it does not follow that their Opinions were harmless because Justin calls them Friends he undoubtedly had Friends among the Heathens as well as the Hereticks and I suppose our Authour would take it very ill if all Orthodox Christians should commence Enemies to him for his Opinions in this Book So that the good nature and charitableness of this good Man could no more palliate the guilt of these Mens wicked Heresies than their Blasphemies could lessen his Vertues The Authour afterwards begins to be very gay and florid and says that the Orthodox belief of our Saviour's Divinity which he pretends to be contrary to that of the Ancients is like Diamonds costly hard and useless that our Saviours being brought into Questions of this nature is like Gold being made into a Pin which is only to debase his dignity and to employ it at Boys-play But who ever said that our Lord's name being in any Proposition gave truth or dignity to it purely as such Our Authour may be as merry with his Push-pin simile as he pleases but I think there is as little sense in this Declamatory stuff as there is to use his expression of that noble Metal in the point of his Pin. But though the Question of our Saviour's Divinity does not receive its importance by having our Saviour's name in it yet it may from the Command of God who has obliged us to believe aright in this point it may from the conducibleness of such a belief to a good Life as we have proved before and then all these fine simile's are not to much purpose But our Authour as he began this Chapter with the Testimony of an Emperour he ends it with one of a Lord though perhaps he had plaid the Orator better if he had given out his least Testimony first and have begun with the Lord and ended with the Emperour Though this Testimony I believe will stand him in no more stead than the former as upon examination will appear Now this Testimony is of one Leonas a Courtier in Constantius's Court who was sent by that Emperour to preside in the Council of Seleucia who seeing the Bishops fierce and endless he says at this push-pin Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity dismissed them with this reprimand Go and play the Fools at home The Authour quotes Socrates for this though these words are not in him there are indeed these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Get you gone and play the Fool again in the Church or in Church matters But I cannot imagine why the Author should translate it as he does unless perhaps he has met with some latin translation of Socrates or some latin Authour that quoted this place out of him which led him into this errour And this in all probability is the true case He finds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by abite domum or ite domum and so thinks the word domum belongs to the latter part of the Sentence not to abite but to nugas agite the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so renders it into English play the Fool at home But whether this be the case or no it is no great matter the Testimony is not very considerable and besides it does not make any
thing against the Orthodox Believers Leonas himself was in all probability an Arian as being such a Favourite of Constantius and being sent to preside in that Council which did mostly consist of Arians and if any plaid the Fool in this Council 't was the Arians for the two quarrelling Parties here were both Arian both agreed against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed the Opinion of the Acacian Party we may see at large in Socrates in their Creed which they set forth when they met again at Constantinople An. 364. and the other Party subscribed the Creed set out by the Council of Antioch which was Arian too So that Leonas might well think them to play the Fools when they were both agreed upon the point and were very unanimous as to the main of their Heresy that they should wrangle and squabble and fall to Loggerheads about nothing For all their bustle was whether they should express their Arian Notions by altering an old Creed to their purpose or by framing a new one CHAP. VIII A belief with respect to the Person of Christ fruitless towards the Inquirers own satisfaction THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Testimony from the Emperour Constantine again who in his Letter to Arius and Alexander says that the Question they were disputing about was so abstruse that they could make few among the Multitude to understand it And what then the matter of Alexander's Belief might be plain enough and yet they by their disputes might render it abstruse and puzzling I have known ordinary Questions in Logick and Morality drawn into such fine Threads by Argumentation that both the Disputants have lost the sight of the Question and have hardly at last understood their own meaning And this might be the Case of Arius and Alexander for ought I know But the Reason why the Emperour thought the Question it self so puzzling was because he could see little difference between their Opinions for he could not so well understand their distinction of a Generation and a Production out of nothing he thought this was only a Metaphysical notion too transcendent for vulgar Brains but was not aware of the Consequence which Arius drew from the Son 's being produced out of Nothing that this must make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Creature Then he proceeds to shew That the Messias was a Person of whom the Scripture did foretel that his Generation should not be known But he does not produce any of these Prophecies and therefore I shall not be obliged to answer those which some others have brought to our Authour's purpose All that he brings is a Text out of John and another out of the Hebrews the first is we know whence this man is but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is Joh. 7. 27. This place does not prove That Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father nay it rather makes for it than against it because by the Phrase no man knoweth it supposes a Generation above all humane understanding But it no ways proves That we cannot tell whether Christ be the Son of God or no and this it must prove if it will do the Authour any kindness All that this Text proves is That the Jews thought that Christ was to be of no earthly Extraction not the Son of any Man but of God But we know say they whence this Man is that he is born of Joseph and Mary this is the Carpenter's Son and therefore he cannot be the Messias who is to be of a heavenly original the Son of God in a manner we cannot tell for if it was not to be known whether the Messias were to be the Son of God or no why does our Saviour call himself so and require others to believe him such and if he was the Son of God then it was to be known whence he was in this Sense so that all that can be drawn from this Text is That Christ is not of an earthly Original and this we would have granted him without his pains of proving it The other Text is out of Heb. 7. where Melchizedeck being brought as a Type of our Saviour and being there declared to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Father and without Mother without Descent therefore Christ's original is not known Indeed Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Mother in respect of his Divinity but he is not without Father unless that we suppose him falsly to call God his Father in so many places But neither was Melchizedeck without Father and without Mother as not being of an earthly extraction he was without Father without Mother without descent in relation to the Aronical Priests whose Fathers and Mothers and all their Pedigree was exactly set down and preserved in the Jewish Records but there was no constat of Melchizedeck's Pedigree the Scripture is perfectly silent of his Original and no other Records give an account of it But our Saviour's Original according to the flesh is set down by the Evangelists an exact Catalogue given us of all his Progenitors therefore Melchizedeck is no Type of our Saviour in this respect His being like unto the Son of God as the Apostle speaks in his abiding a Priest continually v. 3. that is being of that blessing kind of Priesthood which shall always continue when the other of the Jews shall be abolished Well but the Authour says That the Evangelists derive Christ's Pedigree from a wrong Father and two different ways on purpose to amuse us This is a bold stroke to tax these inspired Writers with Errour and Deceit and to make the Holy Spirit of God the Spirit of Delusion But what though the Evangelists do shew Christ's descent two different ways they may be both true for all that the intermingled Marriages of Families in our modern manner where all nigh degrees are prohibited do often occasion one Person to descend from another two ways which must be much more so among the Jews who were often to marry their nighest Relations to keep up their Families Therefore 't is no wonder if the Evangelists relate this Pedigree divers ways where as it might have been related several other ways and all true for 't were easie to draw his present Majesties descent only from William the Conquerour in it may be seven or eight different Branches But if any one has a mind to see the difficulties of this Genealogy explained he may see it at large in those excellent Men Grotius and Bochartus for it would be too long to enter upon a Discourse of this nature here So that 't is a most impudent Falsity in the Authour to say That it is left impossible to prove our Saviour deriv'd from David when the Evangelists have written these Genealogies for that end Next the Authour quarrels with the Bishop of Alexandria for offering to explain the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity or as he speaks for boldly answering I will
declare his generation We know not at this distance what this Explication of that Bishop was Socrates tells us that he acted the Divine something Philosophically and with a desire of Honour concerning the Trinity asserting an Vnity in Trinity But this had been done often before Alexander's time Tertullian had wrote a Book of it against Praxeas and we may see as curious Disquisitions probably as this was of our Saviour's Divinity in many of the Fathers before Alexander nay the Authour allows the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to be mostly received in Justin Martyr's time Therefore we cannot suppose that it was this curious Disquisition of Alexander that so offended Arius for if so he might as well be offended with Tertullian and several others But Theodoret gives us the true state of the Case Arius was nettled at Alexander's Advance to the Bishoprick but could not vent his spleen against him by any Accusation of him though he watched him narrowly by reason of the excellent Circumspectness of his Life and therefore took this Opportunity to cavil at his Doctrine only for saying The Son is of equal honour with the Father and of the same substance This Arius had the confidence to contradict in the Face of the Congregation and to say what was never said before says Sozomen That the Son was produced out of nothing That there was a time when he was not So that let Alexander be as wary in his Expressions as he could 't is ten to one but some time or other he had been catched up by Arius who only waited for an opportunity to oppose him and probably it would have been indifferent to him to have broached any other Heresie if he could with any plausibility have contradicted Alexander But notwithstanding this Insolence of Arius in the midst of the Congregation and his endeavouring to gain Proselytes to his Opinion by disputes open and private notwithstanding all this Boldness his Bishop Alexander desires only that he would come to a fair Dispute to try the Truth of his Doctrine and there was a dispute held in which the Bishop supplied the Moderator's part very calmly as the Historian says encouraging each side as they deserved commendation but in the end of the dispute he determined it against Arius and forthwith commands him to renounce his Errour which he and his Followers pertinaciously refusing he at last excommunicates them And truly I think the Bishop had patience enough to suffer so long the Pride and Heresie of this haughty Presbyter and I cannot but admire his Clemency in allowing him a Conference before Excommunication after so impudent an Affront to his Diocesan and one would be apt to think that when the Authour blames Alexander so much for this action he had some little Foresight of his own Case Then followed the great Council of Nice which excommunicated Arius and those Bishops which would not subscribe to its Determinations in this Point and truly the Authour is so civil to let this Council pass over without reflection but runs off again to the Bishop of Alexandria whom he censures for his Disobedience to the Imperial Letters for the restoring of Arius upon account of his being excommunicated by the Council and his wanting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Confession But 't is not the same Bishop of Alexandria now as was before which the Authour's Words do imply for Alexander whom he was so fierce against before was dead he living but five Months after the Nicene Council and Athanasius was chosen Bishop in his room to the great grief of the Arians Neither was this excellent Person whom all the Arian Party strove to load with the most heavy Accusations and which the Authour would make guilty of great disobedience any ways to be blamed in the matter of restoring Arius Before this matter happened Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis two famous Arian Bishops that had been deposed by the Council and banished by the Emperour were restored upon their exhibiting a fraudulent and dissembling Libel to the Emperour in which they pretend to be sorry for what they had done to consent to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and promise to live peaceably for the future without any further contradiction and add that they do not this to be freed from their Banishment but only because they would not be thought to be guilty of Errour but as soon as ever they were restored they made very little of all these Promises but were as violent in propagating their Arianism as ever and as Socrates says abusing the Favour that was granted them raised a greater Tumult in the World than they had before They labour earnestly to get Arius restored especially Eusebius who deals with an Arian Priest who was Chaplain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Constantia the Sister of Constantine to use his Interest for his Restoration This Priest makes the Lady believe that Arius's Opinions were not such as were reported but she does not dare to tell the Emperour so much but the Emperour visiting her oft in her Sickness she recommends this Priest to him for his Piety and Loyalty This Priest having thus gained an Interest in the Emperour he tells him what he had done to Constantia before and besides that Arius would willingly subscribe to the Decrees of the Nicene Council Upon this relation the Emperour declares That if this be true if he join with the Council and be of their Opinion that he will not only suffer him to approach his Presence but will send him back honourably to Alexandria Upon which the Emperour writes to Arius to wait on him at Constantinople which accordingly he does with his Friend Euzoius who was in the same Circumstances and upon the demand of the Emperour they jointly give him in a Summ of their Belief which is to be seen in the Historians cunningly enough worded it seems to impose upon the Emperour which Creed Sozomen says did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look both ways might be either Orthodox or Arian as 't was interpreted Upon this the Emperour is willing they should be restored but did not think fitting to do it of himself without the Judgment and approbation of those who are the proper Declarers of this matter according to the Law of the Church And therefore he writes to the Synod of Bishops which were then congregated at Jerusalem to take the matter into their consideration and to inspect their Creed which he sent with them to the Synod But this Synod consisting mostly of Eusebius's Creatures for most of the Orthodox Party had retired after the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Temple was over they that were diligent Favourers of Arius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking an Opportunity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took off his Excommunication Upon this the same Faction in the Council writ a Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria the Bishops and Clergy of Aegypt
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
what disgrace is it to this Council to be Condemned by an Heretick and an Usurper as Basiliscus was both For he had drove his Master the Emperour Zeno from his Throne and had embraced Eutychianism by the Instigation of his Wife Zenodia But the Authour need not lay any great stress upon Basiliscus's Circulatory Letters for within a little time after his Usurpation continuing but two years after which Zeno was restored he sends other Circulatory Letters to Countermand the former and to condemn Eutyches and his Followers and what 's most pleasant is he entitles them in the front the contrary Circulatory Letters of Basiliscus Now this fickle temper of the Usurper the Heretical Clergy that had subscribed his first Circulatory Letters were much afraid of which made them desire him to send no other contrary to them for fear the World should be over-run by Sedition the Council of Chalcedon having occasioned infinte blood-shed which expression the Authour would make advantage of against the Council though it comes to nothing at all For what can we suppose those Men to say or do which out of base compliance to a wicked Emperour had denied their Faith To be sure they would do all they could to keep up his present resolution for if he should alter it and encourage again the Orthodox they knew very well what a condition they would then be in after so scandalous a condescention To hear these Men rail against the Council of Chalcedon would signify as much as to hear one of our Clergy that had read the Declaration in the late Reign to exclaim against the Sanguinary Laws of the Nation and the Spirit of Persecution in the Church which no one to be sure would believe any thing the more for their saying so because every one must expect they would have something to say to justify so infamous a compliance As to what the Authour mentions farther about the dispute of the two Wills in Christ this was in no ways owing to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity but altogether to the Innovations of the Hereticks The Authour gives us some short account of the rise of this Heresy but neither so fair nor so clear as he ought for as for the name Catholicus he mentions I cannot imagine whom he should mean unless Athanasius the Patriarch of the Jacobites who is the Person I suppose he must aim at though I cannot find he was ever called by that name indeed he pretended to be a Catholick and Baronius in the Margin of his Annals when he relates something of this matter writes in large Letters Athanasius simulat se Catholicum and perhaps this might lead him into this Errour But in short the rise of Monethelitism which was only a Spawn of the Eutychian Heresie was this as Paulus Diaconus informs us When the Emperour that is Heraclius was at Hierapolis Athanasius the Authour 's Catholicus Patriarch of the Jacobites a subtil Man and of a shrewd Wit coming to the Emperour and talking of Religious Matters Heraclius perceiving his Parts promises him he should be Patriarch of Antioch if he would subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon That there were two Natures in Christ He greedy of the Prey pretends to subscribe but then to beguile the Emperour he subtilly subjoins But what think you of the Wills and Operation in Christ are there Two Wills and Two kinds of Operations or but One The Emperour no understanding these Subtilties sends to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople and Cyrus Bishop of Phaselis who as they were of a corrupt Judgment that is Eutychians answer That he had but one Will. In this manner the Emperour being entangled he desires to draw others into his Opinion This was the Rise of Monothelitism which is no ways owing to the Doctrine of the Orthodox it being only a Corollary of the Eutychian Heresie and was propagated only by those that were poisoned with Eutyches's Tenets What the Opinions of these Hereticks particularly were is no great matter or what was determined for them in some little by-Synods of their own packing it is enough to know that the Catholick Church condemned this Heresie as soon as it began to gain Footing in the World by a General Council the Second of Constantinople CHAP. IX It is dangerous AND when the Authour comes to shew this he is for a home charge at first onset and makes this danger we incur by the Orthodox Belief of our Saviour's Divinity to be no less than that of Blasphemy This is a hard Accusation but the best on 't is 't is difficult to prove and the Author is so civil as far as I can see not to attempt it He has in this Paragraph a Quotation out of Socrates not much to the purpose and a little talk about Precipices and Children's walking upon the top of high and narrow Walls but not a tittle of the Blasphemy business unless this be something when he says That this Doctrine makes us have so mean an opinion of our Lord's Person as to think it comprehensible But by the Authour's Favour who ever of the Orthodox said our Lord's Person was comprehensible or ever pretended to comprehend it He was just now charging us for flying to the word Mystery as an impregnable Fort in this Doctrine and now he is angry because he fansies we don't think it enough mysterious This is a pleasant way of arguing the Authour has got to talk thus backwards and forwards and within a Page or two so that I am sure if the Authour cannot believe he can write Mysteries But why must every explication of the Possibility of the existence of a thing make it comprehensible Indeed every thing that is explained is so far comprehensible as it is explained and so may any thing that is infinite be so far comprehensible I can comprehend the possibility of an infinite division of Quantity but yet I cannot comprehend the modus of such a Division farther than the numbers guide me which I have a perfect notion of I can comprehend the necessity of God's being eternal tho' 't is impossible I should have an adequate Idea of his particular duration or of that infinite time he has already been or is to be That our Saviour is God is all the Orthodox pretend to comprehend but not the manner of his being God They endeavour to make this Truth as intelligible as they can which the Hereticks would make both false and unintelligible 2. The Second Danger of this our Belief he would have to be because he says We have no firm ground to go upon As for Scripture he says the Arians capt Texts with the Orthodox Antiquity they claim'd with equal Confidence and Councils determined sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other according as Emperours influenc'd them so that the only Advantage of the Catholicks is long Prescription and that after Sentence Now this is all bold Assertion without one word of Proof and I hope the
pretty reasons why the Latin Bishops were more easily lead by the Bishop of Rome than the Greeks were he supposing their Zeal for the Orthodox Doctrine to be only in compliance with that Bishop which are First by reason of the Greatness of his City and Secondly the Smallness of their Understandings I believe he brought in this Great and Small rather for a Witticism than a Reason But why should they be lead by the Greatness of his City Men are wont to be jealous of every over-grown Power and are sooner apt to oppose than assist it But why should not the Bishop of Constantinople by the same rule have as many always at his command And why should not poor Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria a mighty City too draw as many of his Neighbours of his side But the Authour is afraid that this Argument from the Greatness of the City wo'n't do much and therefore he don't much insist upon it but that from the Smallness of the Latin Bishops Understandings he thinks is a good one and this he endeavours to back with some proof viz with a Story of the Latin Bishops not apprehending a captious Question which was put in the Council of Ariminum Now every one knows how easie it is for designing Knavery to impose upon well-meaning Honesty A little Subtilty with a great deal of Dishonesty will over-reach a great number of wise and honest Men. Several of these tricks all that have read this History know were used in this very Council The Question was put whether they believed in Homo-ousium or in Christ If the Orthodox had said they believed in Homo-ousium the Arians would have scoffed at them for believing only in a word And when they said they believed in Christ and not in Homo-ousium they pretended they had given up their cause by discharging the Homo-ousium Now 't is but too frequent to find in many great Assemblies that the Espousers of the true side are cheated out of their Voices by the fraudulent putting of the Question and that possibly might be the case here But besides there was another reason for their then refusing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Hereticks had gotten a sense of the word which favoured their Heresy so that the Fathers did not reject the word but only their sense of it This long and mischievous Controversy as he calls it he says was at last setled by Theodosius which according to his compute in his last Paragraph was as he expresses it after a hundred and fifty years strugling But I am afraid he is a little out of his Chronology again for he is mistaken but the odd hundred years or thereabouts For set the contest of Arius with Alexander the highest in the year 315 from that time to this Edict of Theodosius in the year 379 are but 64 years which are much short of his 150. But to pass over this what though this Controversy was setled by Theodosius Oh! the Authour has an abundance to say to that in his reflections at last upon his whole relation That this Doctrine now established i. e. the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity was advanced by gross partiality of the most guilty kind and at last imposed by a Novice Emperour upon implicit Faith in two Bishops c. and so on with a long ranting period of some twenty lines But to consider this a little A Novice in Christianity it is true this Emperour was because he received Baptism that year or the year before he published this Edict and yet the Edict might be never the worse for all that but to be sure he sufficiently understood the Christian Religion before he was admitted to Baptism and generally persons that come into the Church at those riper years do take better care to inform themselves before Baptism than others do after it But why must this be an implicit Faith in two Bishops He draws his Consequence from what Sezomen says when he gives an account of this Edict that the Emperour wills that all his subjects should embrace that Religion which Peter the Prince of the Apostles had from the beginning deliver'd to the Romans and which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria held If here be an implicit Faith here is one in three Bishops for Peter the Apostle was as good a Bishop as the other two and the same Faith is said to be of all three But how can he draw from these words that he had an implicit Faith in the other One certainly may use anothers Summary of Faith having found it conformable to God's word without believing implicitly as that other does as well as I can use another Mans Form of Devotion without praying implicitly with him Now the reason why these two names are used by the Emperour is because these Bishops were eminent Professours of the Orthodox Faith amidst the many Heretical Doctrines then in the World and were particular Defenders of it against Arianism If any Man should say he is for believing as the Ancient Fathers believed for continuing in that Faith in which the Athanasius's Cyrils Chrysostoms Nazianzens did that Faith which is still embraced and defended by the great and learned Men of our Church and not for believing as the little heedless Authour of the Naked Gospel does This would not be to believe implicitly on these great Men right or wrong but only to shew 't is more probable that their Faith is better grounded than that of every little trifling Heretick 'T is not worth while to examine all the Declamatory stuff he has brought towards the end of this Chapter for 't is a sure sign that Men want reason when they begin to declaim in such subjects but in truth the Authour has no very good hand at this neither for his strokes will raise no Mens Passions unless their Anger to see their Religion abused by such impudent and withal witless scurrility And indeed 't is enough to raise a Christians Zeal to an unusual Temper to hear him at the end of his false and patch'd relation of this Controversy to plume himself and vaunt as if he had struck the Orthodox Cause for ever dead Behold now the ground says he on which one of our fundamental Articles of Faith is built Behold the justice of that Plea which from such a possession would prescribe to our belief This and what after he says that the Athanasian are to be numbred with the Roman Doctrines is but common-place talk and what may be said upon any thing a Man has a mind to vilify though it be never so sacred The Authour in the close of this Chapter has hooked in some Arguments to make us have a favourable Opinion of the Arians and their Tenets though 't is nothing at all as far as I can see to his design in this Chapter The first is a very good one If Alexander himself the head of the Party could tolerate the Arians we can ill pretend
so that of all the Arians in the Council there was none but did subscribe to the Confession then made and but Five that did refuse to subscribe to the Condemnation of Arius So that their Subscriptions to that Council did not make them the less Arians because 't is plain they were as zealous for Arianism afterwards as before this did not make them to act what they did to vindicate the Emperour's Honour but only to get a fair Riddance of such an excellent Defender of the Orthodox Doctrine as Athanasius was And to find here Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and the other of Nicomedia Theognis of Nice Maris of Chalcedon Patrophilus of Scythopolis c. will never make one think them ever the more equitable Judges to Athanasius for their subscribing to the Nicene Council when their Practices both afterwards and before did so manifestly contradict it Next the Authour proceeds to give a farther Account of the Suffering of Athanasius all which I shall not trouble the Reader to animadvert upon only what he says concerning Athanasius's flying to the Bishop of Rome deserves a little Reflection The Matter in short was this When Athanasius was frightned away the second time from Alexandria by the Threats of the Emperour upon the feigued Story of obstructing the coming of the emperour's Fleet he flies to his Friend Julius Bishop of Rome as any one would to a Friend that would receive him in distress especially being so kindly invited by him Julius then writes a second Letter to the Bishops of Antioch in favour of him accuses them That they had in a clancular manner innovated in the Nicene Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that contrary to the Laws of the Church they had not called him to the Council there being an Ecclesiastical Canon that pronounces void those things which are done without the Consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Rome In this he reprehends them for the Calumnies they had cast upon Athanasius without good Proof This is the Substance of Julius's Letter in favour of Athanasius and Paulus this second time which the Historians give and in this there is not a word of any Threatning which the Authour would have though there was indeed in his 〈◊〉 which the Authour confounds with this where he cites some of them in the Name of the rest to give an Account of the Justice of their Proceedings and for the rest he threatens he shall not abstain from them unless they leave off their Innovation But here is not one word neither of his threatning Deprivation which he talks of Now when Julius saw that this second Letter prevailed no more with the Greek Bishops than the other he had sent before which they answered only as the Historian speaks by a Letter full of Ironies he relates the whole matter to the Emperour Constans who writes to his Brother Constantius that he might send some Bishops to Rome to answer for the Abdication of Athanasius and Paulus And to this end Three are sent Narcissus Bishop of Irenopolis Theodorus of Heraclea and Marcus of Arethusa But these being found shuffling in giving an account of their Faith and to have delivered in a Form of Belief contrary to the Nicene Constans easily perceived that they had persecuted Athanasius and Paulus not for any Fault but only for the matter of their Belief and therefore sends them back as they came Notwithstanding all the Intreaties of Constans to his Brother Athanasius and Paulus could not yet recover their Sees and therefore they desire of the Emperour Constans that a Council may be called and accordingly there is one called to meet at Sardica in Illyrium The Western Bishops meet as appointed at Sardica but the Greeks meet at Philopopolis in Thrace and from thence write to the Western Bishops that they drive the Excommunicates Athanasius and Paulus from the Council or otherwise they will not come thither But at last to Sardica they come but then they resolutely protest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they will not enter into the Church in which those Persons they had excommunicated were To this the Western Bishops answer by Letter That they never avoided Communion with them neither would they do it especially since Julius the Roman Bishop had diligently inspected their Cause and had not condemned them and besides That they came thither to justifie themselves and to answer the Accusations brought against them So at length nothing coming of this Epistolatory Dispute the Eastern Bishops being chiefly Arian will not associate with the Western on these terms and therefore are resolved to act separately These Bishops being in all but Seventy six according to Sozomen put on a Conciliar Authority and the First thing they do is to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome and Hosius c. for communicating with the Abdicates They are nevertheless invited to the Council by a Letter wrote by Hosius but they still refuse to come therefore the Fathers in the Council without them proceed to the Examination of the Crimes objected against Athanasius which having considered they pronounce him innocent and send their Letters into Egypt Alexandria and Libya that Athanasius and his Friends were wholly innocent and that their Accusers were ill men Sycophants and any thing rather than Christians Now the Bishops that subscribed to this Absolution of Athanasius were as appears 284. After these so contrary Proceedings of the Bishops the Historian indeed makes this Remark That the Bishops of the East and West did not use that Familiarity with one another as before and from hence the state of the Church as in all probability it would was disturbed by Dissentions and lay under Calumnies But here did not from hence arise an immortal Schism in the Church as the Authour would pretend for the Orthodox held a good Correspondence still with their Brethren in the West however averse to their Friendship Communion the Arians might be and we may see in many Councils after this their mutual Friendship and Agreement But what though there did arise some Troubles in the Church upon this dispute of our Saviour's Divinity are the Orthodox to blame that asserted it or the Hereticks that denied it Certainly these Troubles are owing to those only whose Blasphemous Assertions denied so important a Truth and not to those that defended it though their Defence might accidentally occasion some Troubles to ensue For the Person that does the Wrong is answerable for all the accidental Damages that follow upon it or otherwise the honest Possessor may be blameable for the defending his own goods to the damage of the unjust Aggressour And in good truth Thieves may with as good a Face charge honest Men with the Tumults they may accidentally raise in defending themselves or their goods as the Hereticks to charge the Orthodox with making Distractions in the Church by defending their Faith which was thus Heretically opposed The Authour next gives two