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
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
of pains to lay his matter in order though I believe it will make little to his purpose For we will grant all that he has been here saying is true if he lets the matter lie as the Apostle left it against the Gnosticks Nay but perhaps the Trinitarians will not so easily get off here And truly any one that understands the design of the Authour's Book would expect from these Propositions some wonderful confutation of the Trinitarian Doctrines But our Authour very cunningly lets that alone and by a Hocus-Pocus trick claps before our Eyes some Romish corruptions which were occasioned he tells us by people that heaped to themselves Teachers having itching Ears and those Teachers heaped to themselves Doctrines to scratch that itch and so the Monks by scratching and clawing one another scratched themselves into all the errours of the School-Divinity Therefore he concludes that there being such errours that destroy the Gospel simplicity and we being not to be saved by the greatest humane authority he means general Councils or to put our Souls in a Lottery we must therefore see what those Doctrines are which destroy the Gospel simplicity which cannot better be managed he tells us than by the three enquiries of his Book Now though for all the Authour has said to this point the Doctrine of the Trinity is very safe yet because he would slily insinuate that this Doctrine is one of those Romish Errours that destroy the simplicity of Christianity I think fit to make him this Answer First That the belief of the blessed Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion For if there be nothing in that Doctrine but what a Man of ordinary capacity may understand as much at least as is requisite for his belief and as far as his judgment tells him 't is reasonable to suppose such a thing should be understood I cannot see why this Doctrine should derogate from the simplicity of Christianity Now First in this doctrine there is nothing but what a Man of mean parts may understand as far as is requisite for his belief for 't is not requisite that such a Man or indeed any Man should fully understand all that he does believe for that would not be belief but science 't is enough for belief that a Man has undoubted Testimony that such a thing is so whether he understands the manner or perhaps the possibility of its being so or not We are wont to take many things upon Trust from the Mouths of Men learned in their respective Sciences the reasons of which we are far from understanding and Mathematicians can demonstrate many Truths and which Men unlearned in their Science take upon their words though to them they seem otherways impossible Now if it be reasonable that a plain unlearned Man should believe many things which he does not understand from the testimony of wiser and more knowing Men I think it a less imposition upon the understandings of plain Men to require them to believe a revealed Truth from the Testimony of the All-wise and All-knowing God Secondly A plain Man understands as much in this Doctrine as his judgment tells him it is reasonable he should understand in a matter of that nature and 't is highly unreasonable for any Man to expect more If any one indeed how wise soever should tell the plain Man that Bread is Flesh the plain Man would think this unreasonable to believe because he knows the difference between Bread and Flesh as well as any one can tell him and because then he is required to disbelieve his Senses in a matter of which they are the properest Judges But if this plain Man be informed by an undoubted Testimony of something which indeed he does not understand concerning God whose nature and essence his reason tells him is not to be understood or any one else though of the greatest learning or reason this he is with an humble submission ready to believe and when he has full assurance of the undoubtedness of the Testimony which confirms this his belief does not in the least boggle at what ' is so delivered For a Person of the ordinariest reason that believes a God and his Attributes must be sure that in that infinite being there are infinite mysteries that is Truths which are not to be understood by finite capacities and if it has pleased God's Wisdom to reveal the Esse of one of these mysteries to us that there are Father Son and Holy-Ghost three Persons and one God though the Modus of this Truth does surpass our understandings yet he acknowledges that this belief is reasonable because 't is irrational for him to think his finite understanding should comprehend all the mysterious Truths in an infinite Deity Secondly 'T is not requisite that every plain simple Man of whom the belief of the Trinity is required as being a divine Truth revealed in Scripture that he should understand all the Questions which are controverted by learned Men about this Doctrine All the disputes about Hypostasis's and Personalities Generations and Processions for there were thousands of good Christians went to Heaven before these Controversies were started in the World or before these terms were ever heard of So that 't is a great mistake of the Adversaries of this Doctrine to think that we impose it as necessary to every ordinary Man's Salvation to understand and to give an express assent to all the determinations of these Questions 't is enough for him to believe the Doctrine in general as he finds it revealed in Scripture and to leave the more particular disquisition of it to more learned Men. And besides 't is not the fault of the Orthodox in the Church that ever these Disputes happened or that ever these names were coined we may thank the Hereticks for all this for they began first to oppugn the received Faith by new Doctrines and strange glosses upon Scripture and then the true Christians in their own defence were forced to vindicate the Orthodox Faith and so because by reasoning upon supernatural Truths which never came into so strict disquisition before they had occasion to invent new words to express these Truths by to prevent long ambages and circumlocutions in discourse or otherwise the World had never been troubled to this day with Hypostasis's Homoousios's or Consubstantiality But after all this clamour against the Orthodox the Socinians themselves not to mention the Arians build their points of Faith upon greater niceties or else how come they to bring in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Divinity that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify the supream God but not with it which is a false as well as a foolish Criticism Or else how come they to make use of that pretty distinction of a God by Nature and a God by Office Then follow his three Queries in which he promises to act no less sincerely than courageously but I am afraid he has
not Socinianism but 't is Socinianism revers'd 't is a Heterodoxy of his own coining 't is such an odd piece of stupid Heresie as not only his beloved Rationalists but even his ignorant Christians will be ashamed of Secondly As to what he would inferr That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the plainness of the Gospel I have given an Answer already to that when I considered his Preface I shall only add That the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity should I think give greater Credit and Authority to his Laws and ordinary Christians should sooner believe and practise them upon account of their having so admirable and divine an Authour Thirdly As to the Doctrine of the Trinity its being contrary to the fewness of the Christian Doctrines which our Authour would have but Two at most Faith and Repentance I answer 'T is true Faith and Repentance in a large acceptation are the Summ of the Christian Religion and 't is as true That the Doctrine of the Trinity is neither Faith nor Repentance by way of Identical Predication but I hope it may be contained under one of them as a species under its Genus Faith and Repentance in a large sense do take in all Christianity under one are contained the Credenda and under the other the Agenda of our Religion But then what is this to our Authour's purpose If it be any thing it must be this Our Saviour has reduced all his Religion to Faith and Repentance nay sometimes to each of them Ergo the Doctrine of the Trinity ought not to be believed or those that teach that Doctrine preach another Gospel Now how glorious a piece of Logick is this Would not this be as good a Conclusion to all intents and purposes Aristotle tells us That all things in the world are Substance or Accident nay he has reduced both these to Ens therefore there is no such thing as Homo or Brutum or therefore he that says so teaches another Philosophy than Aristotle Certainly every one that understands any thing of his Religion must know That Faith in this general acceptation must take in a firm Belief of all things necessary to Salvation a stedfast Trust and Reliance upon God and an undoubted Hope in all his Promises and an express Assent to all Truths he has revealed in his word c. and that Repentance does contain not only a bare turning from Sin but a constant Practice of all Christian Vertues So that our Authour by this Argument might have as well proved Hope and Charity to be no Christian Graces that there is no such Vertue under the Gospel as Temperance or Chastity because our Saviour has only preached Faith and Repentance CHAP. II. Of Faith in what Sense it justifies OUR Authour in the beginning of this Chapter is of a sudden turned pretty Orthodox and falls a-disputing very shrewdly against the Gnosticks and Antinomians and then he applauds himself mightily in his bringing an Illustration out of Act. 27. 18. of St. Paul's saying to the Centurion Except the Mariners stay in the ship we cannot be saved when he had told them before that there should not be the loss of any Man's life now by this Instance he illustrates the Necessity of good works to Justification and tells us that by this all the Questions about Justification may be solved though he knows not of any one before him which has honoured it with a mention I shall not go about to disturb him in his dispute against the Antinomians though I think 't is a little unseasonable in this Place nor shall I go to rob him of the honour of his Instance nor that place of Scripture of the honour of his Mention for I don't remember I have read it used in this Controversie before though I am sure it has been urged with greater Advantage against the Patrons of absolute Predestination And now one would think the Authour had a mind to have a little Controversie with Luther or Calvin or Bellarmine or to state the Question of Justification among the Moderns but truly he leaves it just as he finds it and runs off to a long Indictment he has drawn up against Faith by which I suppose he would prove its Ineffectualness to Justification Which in short he brings to this Dilemma Either by Faith we believe what is reasonable and so we can't help it and then we have no pretence to a Reward or else we believe without Reason and then we are Fools Ergo We are not justified by Faith One may be apt to wonder to what purpose the Authour should bring in this Question into his Book for one would think at first sight that the decision of it for Works would make more for the Papists than the Anti-trinitarians But yet upon second thoughts one may easily find that the Authour was aware that the usual Solution of this Question by the merits of Christ who is our Righteousness would too far advance his Satisfaction and consequently his Divinity and that for a true Justification by Faith there would be required a full Orthodox Belief in all Fundamentals and therefore this Chapter was I suppose to obviate these Objections Though for ought I can see there is nothing proved against any but the Anti-nomians unless he would have all such that are not Socinians But because the Authour does here endeavour to destroy the Effectualness of this divine Grace the express Attestation of God's word the constant Suffrage of the Church and the Satisfaction too of our Saviour's sufferings I shall give him an Answer by shewing these three things which I suppose will be a compleat Answer to this whole Chapter First That we are justified by Faith alone Secondly That this Faith must be Orthodox in all Fundamentals Thirdly To give a Reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as to justifie men by it First We are justified by Faith alone There cannot be any thing more expresly asserted in Scripture than that we are justified by Faith onely The righteousness of God which is by Faith in Jesus Christ is revealed unto all and upon all that believe Rom. 3. 22. And â— 24. Being justified freely by his Grace And v. 30. It is one God that justifieth the circumcision by Faith and the uncircumcision by Faith And so chap. 5. v. 1. Being justified by Faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ And so Eph. 4. 8. By grace ye are saved through Faith and not of your selves it is the gift of God and not of works least any one should boast And our Church informs us That to be justified by Faith onely is a wholsome Doctrine and full of Comfort Besides this has been the constant Doctrine of Learned Men in the most uncorrupted Ages From which 't is plain That 't is Faith alone that does Justifie and not works yet not Faith exclusive of good Works for a true justifying Faith cannot be without them they do as
which the Scripture does recommend for our Pattern was not this bare rational assent but an inspired Vertue that was founded and excited in him by the preventing and co-operating Grace of God 1. For first Faith under the Gospel is a spiritual Grace or an inspired Habit 't is a true and stedfast belief in and reliance upon God through the merits of Jesus Christ and the sanctification of the holy Spirit not by the bare assent only of our reason but by the co-operating Grace of God I know not for my part any truth in all our Religion more expresly revealed than that Faith is a Grace inspired by God It is said to be the gift of God Eph. 2. 8. And again for unto you is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but to suffer for him Eph. 1. 29. Upon Peter's confessing our Saviour's Divinity Christ tells him flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven Matth. 16. 17. We are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but our sufficiency is of God 2 Cor. 3. 5. It is God that worketh in us both to will and to do Phil. 2. 13. No man can come unto me except the Father which sent me draw him Joh. 6. 4. And so Gal. 5. 22. Faith is reckoned among the gifts of the Spirit And the Father of the Demoniack Mark 9. 24. cries out Lord I believe help my unbelief Now if all our Vertues and good thoughts are the effects of God's Grace most certainly this eminent Vertue of Faith must if the Inspiration of God be requisite even for St. Peter's Faith it must surely likewise be so for ours if we are to be drawn to the belief of the Gospel by God we cannot come then upon our own pure accord if the belief of one that was an Eye-witness of our Saviour's Miracles did lack help and improvement from God ours likewise cannot stand in need of less I do not say that God inspires this belief into us without any concurrence of our own judgments that he moves our Assents as if we were meer Machines but his preventing Grace does first excite our belief and his assisting Grace does still further it by giving a blessing and effectualness to the word and without this divine assistance according to the present measures of God's dispensations it is impossible we should ever attain it For the certainty of this divine truth we have Scripture Councils Fathers and Learned Men in all Ages the Doctrine of our own Church and all sober Christians but only a few Socinians and Remonstrants that are for levelling all Scripture and Revelations to their own sense and humour Nay I am apt to think that this Doctrine will be look'd upon as too Calvinistical by some since the Systems of the Remonstrants which condemn this Doctrine are so admired in the world but 't is not Systems but God's word we are to be governed by and from hence we have proof enough to maintain this Doctrine against all the Remonstrants and Socinians in the World 2. Now as to his making the Faith of Abraham by which he is said in Scripture to be justified to be only a natural Faith I answer First Though we should not allow this Faith of Abraham to be the true Christian Justifying Faith or a Faith in Christ Jesus yet we cannot allow it to be only a plain moral Act or Habit for if it were only a bare credence out of Justice to God's Veracity that too must be allowed to come from God because without him we are not able to think a good thought much less to do a good action Though by the light of Natural Religion a man might be covinced that it was his duty to believe God in all his promises yet when these promises by their difficulties seem strangely incredible Flesh and Blood will be apt to shrink and give way and rather to fall a disputing the possibility of them than readily upon God's Authority to believe unless their Faith be strengthned by the assisting Grace of of God's holy Spirit And so Philo the Jew says in this case of Abraham That 't is not so easie a matter to believe in God alone by reason of that cognation we have with that Mortal part we are yoked to which is the cause that we trust in Money and Glory in Honours and Friends and the like but to be purged from all these and to distrust all created things which are unfaithful in themselves and to trust in God alone who is always faithful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the work of a great and heavenly Mind that is an inspired one Secondly But besides this Faith of Abraham was a formal Christian justifying Faith or a Faith in Christ Jesus It was the opinion of the Ancients That all the Patriarchs and all other Good Men both before and under the Law were saved by an express Faith in Christ Eusebius tell us That all the Fathers before Abraham were Christians though not in Name yet in reality and that they followed the Faith of him whom we now follow And St. Hierom That the Saints that were of old were justified by Faith in Christ And St. Gregory That as we are saved by Faith in the past Passion of our Saviour so the ancient Fathers by Faith in his Passion which was then to come Nay Cyril goes farther and makes Abraham from the seeing of the three Angels to have believed in the Consubstantial Trinity And if we look into Scripture we shall find that these great Men had reasons enough to ground them in this Opinion for our Saviour tells the Jews Joh. 8. 56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad Now what should all this gladness and rejoicing be for but that from the Promise which God had made him Gen. 11. 35. that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed he was fully persuaded That God in his good time would send such a Person as Christ into the world that should save the People from their Sins that should die for the Sins of the whole world to reconcile them to God now the consideration of this was matter of the greatest Joy to him then as it is now to all good Christians so that as St. Gregory says there is little difference in this between his Faith and ours but that ours is after and his before Christ's Passion So likewise St. Peter tells the Jews Act. 4. 12. Neither is there Salvation in any other but Christ for there is no other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Now whereas 't is certain by Scripture that these good Patriarchs were saved as appears by God's declaring himself to be their God and by making a lying down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to be an expression for Everlasting Happiness
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
either can from hence conclude that God is in some manner he does not understand three and yet one which is all the notion any one can have of the Trinity Here is no such remote distance between the word and the consequence but any one of the meanest Capacity may find out for Men in their ordinary business every day make conclusions at a wider distance from their premises than this or else I am sure they are not fit to live or deal in the World As to what he instances in the consequence which the Papists draw from Christ's bidding Peter seed his Lambs the Papists when they think fit may answer that for themselves 3. The Third Qualification he gives for Matter of Faith is That it be expresly honoured in Scripture with the promise of Eternal Life Now 't is a little arbitrary methinks in the Authour to lay down a Rule here as he does and give no reason for it especially such a one as he might reasonably expect would be contested and 〈◊〉 one should make bold to deny it he would I believe have a difficult Task of it to prove That every particular Article of only the Apostles Creed had the Promise of Eternal Life expresly annexed to it in Scripture He first tells us a wonderful thing That every thing in Scripture though it be equally true yet it is not equally Gospel and for the Proof of this he brings in the business of Paul's Cloak which he left behind him But I hope the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity is of something more Importance to those that believe it especially than the Relation of Paul's Cloak And if we should ask any Socinian in the World whether supposing it true it was not of greater Importance than this I believe the Vnitarian himself would give such an Answer as would make the Authour ashamed of such an impudent and saucy Comparison And now one would think that the Man that would be so bold as to make this Comparison would bring something to prove That the Belief of Christ's Divinity had not Eternal Life promised to it or that all other Doctrines which were required to be believed had But instead of this he brings one Text of Scripture which makes perfectly against the Doctrine he designs to establish and that is Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Now if the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity be revealed in the Gospel as we have shewn it is and the Belief of the Gospel have Eternal Life promised to it then the Belief of Christ's Divinity has a Title to this Promise as well as the Belief of the Resurrection or any other Christian Doctrine because it is revealed in the Gospel as well as that From this Rule thus firmly established he draws four Corollaries First There is no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts in Matter of Faith Secondly The Scriptures cannot be denyed to be sufficient Thirdly We need not ought not to be uncharitable to any who differ from us in other Doctrines to the Belief whereof the Promise is not appropriated Fourthly There is no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals How well these Corollaries follow from his Proposition I shall not now dispute though upon examination I believe the Consequence would not be so genuine and there might be some occasion for one of the Authour's Heralds to derive it but as for the Two first of them they make nothing at all against the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity which the Authour knows well enough we do not ground upon Infallibility and pure Tradition but only he has a Mind to give us a Cast of his Heretical Malice by blackening this Doctrine as much as he could and by making it look something more of a Romanish Complexion As to his Third Corollary First That is grounded upon Supposition That the Belief of Christ's Divinity has not the Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it Now I wonder with what Confidence the Authour can go about to invalidate a Truth which is so firmly established even upon his own Principles How often in one Chapter of St. John's Gospel Joh. 3. is Eternal Life promised to Belief in the Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. He that believeth on him is not condemned v. 18. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal Life By all which believing is meant a believing in Christ's Divinity and not a believing the Truth of his Doctrine for believing in is only attributable to God as implying an unlimited Trust and Relyance in him which it is Idolatry to afford to any Creature For there is a great deal of difference between credere Deo believing God and credere in Deum believing in him which is a Distinction which is made great use of by some of the Latin Fathers and the School-men they allowing bare believing to be applicable to a Creature but that none is to be believed in but Almighty God But besides there are other Texts of Scripture which do promise Eternal Life namely and expresly to the Belief of Christ's Divinity This is life eternal that they may know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17. 3. Now what can be meant by knowing Jesus Christ but knowing or believing his Divinity That he was Man they could not chuse but know that he was a Prophet his Miracles shew'd so that they could know him no other way truly but only by knowing his Divinity And this was the Purport of our Saviour's Prayer just before That God would glorifie him that is would make his Divinity conspicuous to the World v. 1. which he puts out of all doubt by his explaining his meaning v. 5. And now O Father glorifie thou me with thy own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was Now that Glory which he had before the World could be only the Glory of his Divinity therefore the Promise of Eternal Life was made to the knowing or believing Christ's Divinity The same thing is as plainly expressed 1 Joh. 5. 20. And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God even eternal life Where he that is the true God is said to be Jesus Christ and the knowing him to be the true God i. e. believing him to be such is promised to be rewarded with Eternal Life Secondly As to his saying we ought not to be uncharitable to those that differ from us in Points which have not this Promise this depends upon the Truth of his Assertion that those Truths he means have not such a Promise in Scripture
Principles of their Philosophy and the avowed Opinions of the great Masters in the Grecian Schools and therefore 't was but reasonable that the Apostles should give the greatest Encouragement they could to further the Belief of it when it lay under so many Prejudices amongst them CHAP. XI Of the Manner of the Resurrection whether in the same Body or another I cannot imagine why the Authour should single out this Heterodoxy alone out of all the Socinian Errours to join with his Denial of our Saviour's Divinity One would have thought He might rather have contested the Doctrine of the Satisfaction or the Divinity of the Holy Ghost which would have made his Book look more of a piece than now it does But why he should single out this above all the other Points of the Socinian Controversie I can give no reason for unless having talked about Resurrection in the last Chapter that gave him a hint to make a ramble into a discourse of it here How ever the Case stands I shall give an Answer to what he says against the received Doctrine of the Church in this Point as short and as plain as I can And in order to this I will shew First the Necessity of Mens rising again in the same numerical Bodies Secondly I shall answer those Arguments which this Authour brings against the Truth of this Doctrine First The Necessity of Mens rising again with same numerical Bodies they laid down in the Grave 'T is not easie to guess what 't is these Socinian Gentlemen would have to rise again if not the Body 't is impossible that the Soul should be said to rise again because that never fell for all Rising supposes a Falling Resurgere non est nisi ejus quod cecidit Nothing can rise but what has fell says Tertullian in the same case adv Marc. lib. 5. cap. 9. Therefore it does necessarily follow That 't is the Body must arise if there be any Resurrection Besides our Saviour who is the great Original and Archetype of our Resurrection or as the Apostle speaks the first fruits of them that sleep he arose in the same Body that he deposited in the Grave and therefore our Bodies that are to be fashioned like to his glorious Body must be the same Bodies as his was the same or else they will not be conformable to their Original but farther I know not what Truth can be revealed plainer than this is in the holy Scripture Not to insist upon Job 19. 26. I know that my Redeemer liveth c. nor on Dan. 12. 2. Many of them that sleep in the Dust c. though these are evident Proofs enough of this Doctrine yet several Texts in the New Testament are unexceptionable as particularly Joh. 5. 28 29. For the Hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation Now what is that which is in the graves but only the Bodies of Men to be sure their Souls are not there therefore if these Words have any propriety of speech it must be that then the Bodies of Men that are in their Graves shall arise The consequence of this is so plain that Smaltzius the Socinian will have this to be understood only in a figurative sense that nothing is meant here but the Calling of the Gentiles that by the Dead are meant Aliens from the Faith that by hearing the Voice of the Son is understood the Hearing the Gospel preached but how foolish this Interpretation is may be known from the Distinction which is here made of those that are to arise into Good and Bad. For if here be meant only such a Resurrection as he means from Sin to Grace then all were Bad because they all were in a state of Sin and so there is no room for the other Branch of the Distinction those that have done good so that this must be perfectly superfluous And so again this is as plain from Rom. 8. 11. He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you Where those Bodies which are to be quickned or revived are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mortal or dying Bodies and therefore the Bodies to be quickned or raised cannot be any other Bodies than those which did die Besides those Bodies are said to be quickned in which the Holy Ghost dwells now they are these very Bodies which are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3. 16. cap. 6. 15. therefore they are these very Bodies which are to be quickned or raised again To this may be added the constant Consent of the Catholick Church The Latins understood this by their Carnis resurrectionem in their Creed and the Greeks by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in theirs but of all the Aquileian Creed was most particular for this had hujus Carnis resurrectionem the Resurrection of this very Flesh This was the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers of the Church Justin Tertullian Anaxagoras Cyprian Austin Hierom and all others till the Socinians began to turn all the Articles of the Christian Faith upside down and among the rest to overthrow the Orthodox Belief of the Resurrection This is enough to shew that this was the belief of learned Men in the first Ages of the Church not was it less the belief of other Christians Or else what should be the cause that this Doctrine of the Resurrection should seem so difficult to be believed if the Ressurrection was nothing but the Soul 's being cloathed with another Body why should that be more hard to be credited than that God could cloath it with a Body at first For he that gave it a Body at first could with as great ease give it another Body when that was gone Here is no difficulty at all here but this was the thing that confounded their Faith how a Body should be raised again that had so long lain rotten in the Grave that had passed through so many Transmutations that was turned into the substance of so many different Bodies how all these scatter'd parts should leave the Bodies they should then help to make up and be ranged together into their old form This indeed would be apt to strain the Faith of a great many but no one could be so foolish to stand out against Christianity upon the incredibility of the other opinion Besides if this was not the Faith of the Ancient Christians what meant those malicious exprobrations of the Heathens to them by shewing them the Bodies of their Martyrs half devoured by Lyons by burning their Bodies and then scattering their Ashes into Rivers but only because they thought this did make the Resurrection they believed utterly impossible What else could be the meaning of the great care which the Primitive Christians took of
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
that inclined his Eternal Wisdom to command them It no ways follows that he is a humoursome or capricious Being because we do not understand the Reason of his Commands because he may have reasons that lie far beyond the fathom of our finite understandings A wise Statesman or a Mathematician is not therefore capricious and humoursome because he does several things which the ignorant Spectator can give no account of And certainly God may have commanded us several things for our belief which we cannot imagine how they should any ways conduce to our good and happiness ye he himself may know it as his Providence does several things for our benefit by means to us seemingly contrary But besides we have proved that the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity is an admirable motive to our Piety and it were as easy to do the same if it were not too long here as to the Divinity of the holy Spirit So that it is so far from Capriciousness that it shews the inexpressible Wisdom of the Deity that every person of the Blessed Trinity should be particularly concerned in the Salvation of Mens Souls in our Creation Redemption and Sanctification and each of them should lay the strictest obligation upon us to Piety 2. Neither does the Doctrine of the Trinity hinder the progress of the Gospel though the Romish Doctrines may The Idolatry of that Church is an Eternal Bar to Jews and Mahometans but the Doctrine of the Trinity is not such We worship one God as well as they and acknowledge only in that unity of essence a Trinity of Persons which was a truth the Ancient Jews had something of a notion of in their Doctrine of the Logos or Word as appears from their Rabbins and other Writers nor can we suppose that the Mahometans should so stand out against this Truth unless they had been prejudiced against it by their false Prophet whose Interest it was to have it denied But when ever it shall please God to call home the Jews and to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles this Truth will be no obstacle to it this Divine Mystery shall be believed in and adored when all the Romish Hay and Stubble shall be burnt up 2. He makes the Damages which have proceeded from Innovations pernicious to private Christians First By hindring Godliness Secondly Inward Joy and Tranquillity of Mind Now we have proved often enough that the Orthodox Doctrine is so far from hindering Piety that it does extraordinarily improve it If there happen what the Authour mentions too much eager disputing about it then the fault is not in the Doctrine but in the undue managing of it if Men have taken more care to contend for the Faith than against their Lusts and endeavoured more to confound Hereticks than to obey God's Commands they are to answer for that themselves but their faults are not to be charged upon this Doctrine So secondly If the Joy and Tranquillity of the Church has been disturbed by the defending of this Doctrine that is a thing purely accidental to it it does not make it less true because it has cost the Orthodox so much pains to vindicate its Truth against the Fraud and Violence of so many Hereticks Whatever damages good Men have suffered in this Controversy that is to be charged upon those wicked Hereticks that have denied this Doctrine and not upon the Doctrine it self or the Defenders of it Thirdly He makes these Innovations prejudicial to the Church of Christ in its general Capacity But in the proof of this he only tells us some stories of the Slaughter of the Albigenses and Waldenses and the Cruelty of the Duke D' Alva c. which have no relation at all to the Doctrine of the Trinity He cannot say that the Orthodox in the Primitive Times butchered the Hereticks as the Papists have done the Protestants and therefore the Orthodox Doctrine has nothing to answer for upon this Account II. He then proceeds to shew the Advantages which have accrued by the Changes which latter Ages have made in the Gospel But here is nothing offered as to the Doctrine of the Trinity nor which can any ways conclude against this and therefore I shall spare my self and my Reader the trouble of saying much to this Paragraph He tells us here a great deal of the Pope's Merchandise and by the honour and power which he has got by pretending to be Christ's Vicar and brings some sayings from the Papists that the Pope is as much better than the Emperour as the Sun than the Moon that a Priest is as much better than a King as a Man than a Beast that Catholick Kings are Asses with Bells c. with some other proofs of the Roman Clergies aggrandizing themselves by their Doctrines which would have done well enough in a Controversy in the late Reign but are something impertinent in a Book designed against the Trinity But what though the Popish Doctrines of Pardons and Indulgences Merits c. have for so many years kept up the Apostolick Chamber though the Doctrine of Purgatory has gained them so many stately Monasteries tho' the pretended Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope has raised his Authority so high though Transubstantiation and the being able as they sometimes blasphemously call it to make a God has raised the esteem of their Priests among the People yet the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity never brought any advantage to the Clergy and therefore this can never be justly censured upon this Account as a humane Invention and the product of Priestcraft as those others justly are The Conclusion AND here the Authours says the end of all what he has been saying I suppose he means is to determine between Faith and Love to give unto Faith the things that are Faiths and unto Love the things that are Loves But I wish he had made his words good throughout his Book for that had saved me all this trouble and the World all the mischief that his Book has done As to Love he has not said much to that but as for Faith he has given so little to that that granting his Principles it would be hard to find such a Christian Vertue in the World For all that belongs to Faith he has given to Reason and what would not go down with his Reason he is resolved shall neither belong to Faith nor Reason but shall pass for downright contradiction But now at last for a parting blow to shew how little Faith is to be esteemed especially in respect of Love he brings the Opinion of our own Church that in her Offices of Baptism and Visitation of the sick declareth that our Faith is not to extend beyond the simplest of the Creeds and therefore if she says any thing elsewhere that seems to contradict this it is her Charity in becoming a Papist to the Papist that by all means she might gain some of the Papists Of the admirable Charity of our Church I am
Years old goes for Poland and there joyns himself to the Congregation of them that following Servet do pray to Christ as the Son of the Eternal God but not the Eternal Son Who as Socinus says in Poland and in the great Dukedom of Lithuania are called Arians and Ebionites And here he formed the remaining part of his Heresie which differs so much from that of the other Vnitarians before Socinus For whereas Servetus and his Followers were content only to destroy the Doctrine of the Trinity and to retain the other Points of Religion he was for innovating in all and in a strict sence for teaching another Gospel Thus he taught that the Principle and Foundation of Faith was in a Man of himself Soc. Tract de just That justified Persons are in a State of unsinning Perfection Syn. 2. de just Dial. de just p. 14. That Mortality was necessary to Man if he had not sinned Part. 3. de Serv. Chris c. viij That Adam had not the Promise of Eternal Life nor could he avoid his Fall Resp ad def Pucc de prim Hom. stat Lib. Suas quod regn Pol. c. p. 56. That Christ was a new Legislatour and gave Moral Laws which were not so before de Offic. Chr. p. 4. de Conv. Diff. V. N. Test p. 33. That Christ abrogated all the Judicial Precepts of the Law as well as the Ceremonial de Off Chr. p. 5. that notorious Offenders are not to be punished with Death ibid. That the Lord's Supper is not a Conveyance of Grace but only an Act of Commemoration Tract de Coen Dom. That Baptism is not necessary for Christians that it was a Rite only of John and not of Christ de Bapt. Aq. c. xvi That it is a thing indifferent whether Children be baptized or no or any other that it is not a sin if they be but it ought not to be enjoined ibid. cap. 17. That the Messias was not promised to all the Jews Frag. de justif jux fin nor were they at all obliged to believe that the Messias should come ibid. That Christ did not suffer and die for us to rescue us from Punishment but only to shew us an Example how we ought to suffer for Righteousness sake Rel. Chr. brev Inst p. 87 88. brev Disc de rat Sal. p. 15. That Christ was called our Saviour because he manifested the Terms of Salvation to us de Chr. Serv. c. 1 5. That he is called a Mediatour not because he reconciles God and us but because he was Embassadour from God to us to reveal his Will Rel. Chr. Inst p. 85. That Christ ascended up into Heaven before he entered upon his Prophetick Office to be informed of God's Will and therefore in Scripture when 't is said Christ came down from Heaven 't is to be meant of his Descent after this Ascension Rel. Chr. Inst p. 127. in Disp cum Erasm Joh. Christ was not God before his Glorification which was after the Ascension and then he was so only by Office and Immortality Anti-Wiek cap. 6. Rel. Christ Inst p. 25. That Christ was mere Man and the Holy Ghost only an Attribute Ibid. These and many more are the Heterodoxes of his Books which the Socinians do at this day maintain and others there are which are more covertly delivered in Socinus's Books though more expresly asserted by his Followers such as the denying an Eternity of Torments and the rising again with the same Bodies the Hints of which also they took from Socinus so that in him was in a manner wholly perfected the Heresie which does still go under his Name 'T is true the Anti-Adoration Faction who were the Followers of Franciscus Davidis and Symon Budnaeus did a long time stifly oppose him but in the Synod of Brest in the Confines of Transylvania he so cunningly managed the Matter that though he chiefly pretended a Dispute for the Adoration he brought the adverse Party to receive his Notions of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ of Justification and of the Corruption of Mens Nature which they had lately condemned Afterwards he drew over to his Opinion the famous Vnitarian Petrus Statorius a Man of a great Popular Eloquence who made Socinus's Doctrines go down more easily with the People by his Pulpit Harangues He himself too by a strange artifice brought over to his Heresy every day many of the better quality several the Courtiers and Nobility that happened to abide at Lubernick and several of the younger Clergy that were not well grounded in their Religion And none of the Vnitarians after a while objected against this new mode of Socinus but only Nemojevicius and Czechovicius who resisted him strenuously for a time and Nemojevicius after a while too assented to him and Czechovicius though he held out to the last seeing no body to abett him was forced to be still So that within four years time all the whole Church of the Vnitarians did subscribe to the Doctrines of Socinus which they had so lately almost universally Condemned Thus was this Heresy perfected after so many struglings among the Vnitarians themselves which is swallowed down so crudely and without consideration by many in our Ages that make pretence to the greatest Reason and Cautiousness Socinus lived several years after the general Reception of his Doctrines and died in the year 1604. The other Vnitarians that have been famous since Faustus Socinus have been but as the Schoolmen to Lumbard have commented only upon his Text and only more audaciously sometimes explained his notions The first Vnitarian of note after Socinus had formed his Heresy was Georgius Enjedinus an Hungarian Superintendant of the Socinian Churches in Transylvania and Moderator of the Gymnasium at Clausburg He was a follower of Socinus in most of his Doctrines only in the matter of Invocation which Socinus endeavours to disswade him from in a long Letter to him A. D. 1596. He wrote the celebrated Socinian piece upon the Texts of the old and new Testament upon which the Trinity is grounded though the other Tracts attributed to him are doubted Ostorodus was another Disciple of Socinus he was a Saxon by Birth the Son of a Lutheran Minister he was Master of a School for some time in Pomerania but being found to be heretical in his Principles he was deprived of that and so in the year 1585. he came into Poland where he was some time Minister of the Vnitarian Church of Gâ—dan His most famous piece is his Institutions which he wrote in Dutch Next was Johannes Volkelius born in the Province of Misnia in Saxony His chiefest piece is his five Books de verâ Religione or his Institutions of Socinianism which was excellently answered by Maresius Ernestus Sonerus a Norimberg Physician Professor of natural Philosophy and Medicine at Altorf he was the Master of Crellius He wrote the famous Heretical piece against the Eternity of Hell Torments Entituled Demonstratio
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
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