he be but One Christ he must be God and Man in one Person for two Persons make two Christs and if the same One Christ be both God and Man then the Divine and Humane Nature continue distinct without any mixture or confusion he is perfect God and perfect Man in opposition to the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches the first of whom divided the Persons the second confounded the Natures the first made God and Man two distinct Persons and two Christs the second swallowed up the Humanity in God This may serve for a brief Vindication of the Athanasian Creed that it teaches nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God and I thought fit to premise this to let the World see that all the spight against Athanasius's Creed is not so much intended against that Creed as against the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation which are so fenced and guarded from all Heretical Senses and Expositions in that Creed that there is no place left for Tricks and Evasions And now I come to consider the Brief Notes and to expose the Venome and Blasphemy of them which deserves a sharper Confutation than this And that this Author may not complain of unfair usage I shall examine them Paragraph by Paragraph SECT III. Concerning the Necessity of the Catholick Faith to Salvation and a brief History of Athanasius WHosoever will be saved before all things 't is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith A good Life is of absolute necessity to Salvation but a right belief in these Points that have been always controverted in the Churches of God is in no degree necessary much less necessary before all things He that leads a profane and vicious Life sins against a plain acknowledged Rule and the plain and unquestioned Word and Letter of the Divine Law and the Dictates of Natural Conscience he wilfully refuses to advert to these Monitors and therefore can no way palliate or excuse his wickedness But he that errs in a Matter of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all his Error is pure ignorance not a culpable Ignorance For how can it be culpable not to know that of which a Man is ignorant after a diligent and impartial Enquiry This I must confess is as artificial an Introduction to these Notes as could have been invented for it makes Faith a very useless and Heresie a very innocent and harmless thing and then Men need not be much concerned what they believe if they take care to live well The Creed affirms That the Catholick Faith is before all things necessary to Salvation if this be true then how vertuously soever Men live they may be damned for Heresie and this is a dangerous point and will make Men too much afraid of Heresie to trade in such Notes as these and therefore this must be confuted in the first place to take off the dread and fear of Heresie Now can we hope that any thing should escape the Censures of such a Critick who will not allow the Catholick Faith to be necessary to Salvation For if the Catholick Faith is not necessary no Faith is and then we may be saved without Faith and yet the Scripture tells us that we are justified and saved by Faith and if any Faith saves us I suppose it must be the Catholick Faith and then whoever does not hold this saving Catholick Faith must be damned So that at best he has placed this Note wrong he should only have opposed the necessity of Athanasius's Catholick Faith to Salvation not of the Catholick Faith in general and yet this seems not to be a mistake but design for his Arguments equally hold against all Faith as well as against Athanasius's Creed and will serve a Turk a Iew or a Pagan as well as a Heretick For if what he says is true He that errs in a Question of Faith after having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed is in no fault at all How comes an Atheist or an Infidel a Turk or a Jew to be in any fault and if they be good Moral Men and many of them are or may be so why should they be damned for their Atheism or Infidelity for their not believing a God or not believing in Christ at all For are not these Questions of Faith whether there be a God and a Providence and whether Christ be that Messias who came from God Or does our Author think that no Atheist or Infidel no unbelieving Jew or Heathen ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed Whatever he can say against their reasonable diligence I doubt will be as easily said against the reasonable diligence of Socinians and other Hereticks If you say he confines this to such Points as have always been controverted in the Churches of God I desire to know a reason why he thus confines it For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self as to those Points which have been controverted in Christian Churches And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle as Hereticks But I desire to know what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other And whether then this does not give sufficient scope to Infidelity to renounce all the Articles of our Creed which have been denied or corrupted by some professed Christians But what he would insinuate in this that these Points of the Athanasian Creed have always been matter of Controversie in the Christian Church is manifestly false as appears from all the Records of the Church The Anti Nicene Fathers were of the same Faith before the Definition of the Council of Nice as the Learned Dr. Ball has abundantly proved this was always the Faith of the Christian Church and those Hereticks who taught otherwise either separated themselves from the Church or were flung out of it and I hope the Disputes of Hereticks against the Catholick Faith shall not be called Controversies in the Churches of God And yet I desire to know why that may not be the Catholick Faith and necessary to Salvation which has always been matter of Controversie Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted Or is it a sufficient proof that nothing is a point of the Catholick Faith which has been disputed and controverted by some or other in all Ages of the Church And if Men of perverse Minds may dispute the most necessary Articles of Faith then if any Faith be necessary it may be of dangerous consequence to err with our reasonable diligence in such necessary and Fundamental Points as are and have been disputed But before I dismiss this Point it may be convenient to instruct this Author if he can use any reasonable diligence to understand how necessary it is to Salvation and that before all other things to
and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
Reason tell us That Three Divine Persons cannot be One God if my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it and therefore when the Scripture assures us that there is but One God as Natural Reason teaches and that this One God is Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost this contradicts nothing which Reason teaches but adds something which Natural Reason could not discover which is the proper use of Revelation Scripture teaches that there is but one God and that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God Reason teaches that there is but One God but does not teach that there are Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead nor does it teach that there are not and therefore though the Scripture teaches more then Natural Reason does which I suppose may be allowed by these Adorers of Reason yet it teaches nothing contrary to what Natural Reason teaches nay these men can not graft any Contradiction upon it without perverting the Faith of the ever blessed Trinity as it is taught in Scripture and has always been taught in the Catholick Church that is to find a Contradiction their business is to prove that these Three Divine Persons each of which is God must be Three distinct Gods and then Three distinct Gods cannot be One God this I grant and their Argument is unanswerable to those who own these Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods but what is that to us who teach that they are not Three distinct Gods but One God as the Scripture teaches and the Catholick Church always taught and as of necessity we must teach if we believe a Trinity in Unity so that there is no Contradiction is not our Faith for that which they make a Contradiction is not our Faith but a Contradiction to our Faith as well as to common Sense and Reason Well! but if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore it may be either without contradicting the Natural Notions we have of One God and then here is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches that there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which in Scripture have not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God for what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then their Objection against this Faith that these Three Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous for it is demonstrable that if there be Three Persons and One God each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three distinct Gods but One. For if each Person be not God all Three cannot be God unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God and if all Three are but One God they cannot be Three distinct Gods so that whoever believes the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Gods does not believe a Trinity in Unity and whoever believes a Trinity in Unity cannot believe Three distinct Gods and if there be a Trinity in Unity each Person must be God and yet there cannot be Three Gods but One God and now let him go look for his Contradiction in the belief of Three Persons and one God and when he has found it let me hear from him again So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question How can these things be and if I could give him no other Answer I should think it a very good one to say God knows Must we deny every thing that we can't conceive and comprehend though it be expresly taught by God himself Must we deny what we read in the Bible to be there because Reason does not teach it and cannot frame an Adequate Idea of it But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its Allusion to ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. for there is no other good Reason to be given for any Exposition but that the Words signifie so and the Circumstances of the Place and the apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictates of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it well say they then you must expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must expound Scripture according to the use and signification of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture no no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I perswaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I would not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them to put our own sense on Scripture without respect to the use of Words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to make it is not to learn from Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such Matters as are confessedly above Reason as the infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must expound it as I do other Writings for
the essences of things cannot be known but only their properties and qualities The World is divided into Matter and Spirit and we know no more what the substance of Matter than what the substance of a Spirit is though we think we know one much better than the other We know thus much of Matter that it is an extended substance which fills a space and has distinct parts which may be separated from each other that it is susceptible of very different qualities that it is hot or cold hard or soft c. but what the substance of Matter is we know not And thus we know the essential properties of a Spirit that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will and is capable of different Vertues or Vices as Matter is of sensible qualities but what the substance of a Spirit is we know no more than what the substance of matter is Thus as for the essential properties operations and powers of Matter Sense Experience and Observation will tell us what they are and what causes constantly produce such effects and this is all we do or can know of it and he who will not believe that Matter is extended that the Fire burns that Water may be condensed by Frost into a firm and solid Pavement that Seed sown in the Earth will produce its own kind again that a Body can move from one place to another that a Stone falls to the ground and Vapours ascend and thicken into Clouds and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showers c. I say he who will not believe these things till he can give a Philosophical account of them must deny his Senses in complement to his Understanding and he who thinks that he does understand these matters would make a Man question whether he has any Sense Thus it is also with reference to a Spirit We feel within ourselves that we can think and reason that we can choose and refuse that we can love and hate and desire and fear but what these natural powers and passions are we know not how thoughts rise in our minds and how one thought begets another how a thought can move our Bodies or fix them in their Seat how the Body can raise thoughts and passions in the Soul or the thoughts and passions of the Soul can affect the Body The Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits are great Secrets and Mysteries in Nature which we understand nothing of nor are concerned to understand them no more than it is our business to understand how to make either a Body or a Spirit which we have no power to do if we did understand it and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge which would serve no end but Curiosity and that is reason enough why our wise Maker should not communicate this knowledge to us were we capable of it because it does not belong to our Natures as no Knowledge does which we can make no use of the perfect Notions and Idea's of Things are proper only to that Almighty Mind which can give being to them Now this plainly shews what the Natural Boundaries of Humane Knowledge are how far we may attain to a certain Knowledge and where we must give off our Enquiries unless we have a mind to impose upon our Understandings with some uncertain and fanciful Conjectures or to perplex our selves with inexplicable Difficulties 1. As first We have certain ways of discovering the being of Things which fall within the compass of our Knowledge this our Senses Reason or Revelation will acquaint us with and therefore we may know what Things there are in the World as far as they fall under the notice of Sense or are discovered by Reason or Revelation 2. We may know what Things are or what their essential Properties Qualities Operations and Powers are whereby we can distinguish one sort of Beings from another as suppose a Body from a Spirit Bread from Flesh and Wine from Blood and can Reason from Effects to Causes and from Causes to Effects with as great certainty as we understand what the Causes or Effects are 3. But the Essences of Things and the Philosophy of their Natures the Reasons of their Essential Properties and Powers which immediately result from their Natures the manner of their Production and the manner of their Operations are Mysteries to us and will be so do what we can and therefore here our Enquiries must cease if we enquire wisely for it is vain and absurd to perplex ourselves with such Questions which we can no more answer than we can make a World The sum is this when we charge any Doctrine with Absurdities and Contradictions we must be sure that we understand the thing for if it be such a thing as we do not and cannot understand the Nature of we may imagine a thousand Absurdities and Contradictions which are owing wholly to our Ignorance of Things SECT II. The Athanasian Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to the true belief of the Trinity and Incarnation II. LET us now take a view of the Athanasian Creed which this prophane Author makes the Subject of his Drollery and Ridicule and examine whether there be any thing in it which a good Catholick Christian can reject without rejecting the Catholick Doctrines of the Holy and Ever Blessed TRINITY and the Mysterious Incarnation of the SON of GOD for if this Creed contains nothing but what is necessary to this belief and what every Christian who believes these Doctrines must profess then all these Scoffs which are cast upon the Athanasian Creed do indeed belong to the Christian Faith itself if the Trinity and Incarnation be Christian Doctrines As to begin with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Athanasian Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity that is that we worship One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and this all Christians grant to be the Catholick Faith except Arians Macedonians and Socinians and such like Hereticks And how we must worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is explained in the next Paragraph Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance Which must be acknowledged if there be Three Persons and One God for if we confound the Persons by saying that they are all but One Person under Three different Names and Titles or Denominations then we destroy the Distinction of Persons if we divide the Substance by saying that every Person has a separate Divine Nature of his own as every Man has a separate Humane Nature then we make Three Gods as Peter Iames and Iohn are Three Men which is to overthrow the Doctrine of One God and therefore the Creed adds For there is One Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost But the God-head of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One the
Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal This is so far from being a Nicity that it is no less than a Demonstration if we confess Three Persons and One God for if there be Three Persons then the Person of the Father the Person of the Son the Person of the Holy Ghost must be distinct Persons or they cannot be Three if there be but One God then the Godhead of all the Three Persons is but One for if the Godhead were more than One there must be more than One God for the Godhead makes the God and there must be as many Gods as there are Godheads as there must be as many Men as there are particular Humane Natures And if the Godhead be but One then with respect to the same One Godhead all Three Persons must have the same Glory and Majesty for there cannot be Three different Glories and Majesties of the same One Godhead and therefore as it follows Such as the Father is such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father Vncreate the Son Vncreate and the Holy Ghost Vncreate The Father Incomprehensible the Son Incomprehensible the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible The Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles nor Three Vncreated but One Vncreated and One Incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty And yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God And yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are Three Gods or Three Lords This is the sum of all that as the Catholick Religion both Natural Mosaical and Christian requires us to believe that there is but One God so especially the Christian Religion teaches us that there are Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost who are this One God Now if each Person with respect to the same Divine Nature be God then all the essential Attributes and Perfections of a God must be allowed to each Person that he is Uncreated Infinite or Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty God and Lord unless we will say that there may be a Created Finite Temporal Impotent God that is a God who is not in truth either God or Lord and yet though we must acknowledge each Person to be God and Lord we must not assert Three distinct Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which is the true sence of the Article of which more anon for that is to make not One but Three Gods and Lords which overthrows the Unity of the Godhead Now whatever difficulty there may be in conceiving this which I do not now dispute if that be any fault it is no fault of the Athanasian Creed but of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself the Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe if we believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and One God And I challenge any Man who sincerely proffesses this Faith to tell me what he can leave out o◠this Exposition without destroying either the Divinity of some of the Three Persons or the Unity of the Godhead If each Person must be God and Lord must not each Person be Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty If there be but One God and One Lord can there be Three separated Uncreated Incomprehensible Eternal Almighty Gods which must of necessity be Three Gods and Three Lords This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are Three Persons each of which is God and yet but one God of which more hereafter but only asserts the Thing that thus it is and thus it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity which should make all Men who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians more cautious how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed which must either argue that they condemn it before they understand it or that they have some secret dislike to the Doctrine of the Trinity Nor is this to make any additions to the Christian Faith as some object no more than to explain what we mean by GOD is an addition to the Faith This was all the Christian Fathers aimed at in their Disputes against Arius and other Enemies of the Catholick Faith and in those Creeds they framed in opposition to these Heresies to assert the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit in such express terms as would admit of no evasion For this reason they insisted so immoveably upon the term Homo-ousios which signifies that the Son was of the same Nature with the Father as he must be if he be true and real God whereas had he been only like the Father as the Arians asserted he could not be One God with him for that which is only like something else is not the same Now though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in Scripture yet this is no unscriptural addition to the Faith because all that is signified by it is there that is that Christ is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God a true and real not a made or created or nominal God And the Athanasian Creed as far as it relates to this matter is only a more particular explication of the Homo-ousios or in what sense the Son is of the same Nature with the Father and One God with him In the next place the Athanasian Creed having very explicitely declared the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons it proceeds to the distinct Characters of each Person and their Unity among themselves and here also it teaches nothing but what seems essential to the Distinction and Unity of the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost The Father is made of none neither created nor begotten The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created but begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding So there is One Father not Three Fathers One Son not Three Sons One Holy Ghost not Three Holy Ghosts The Distinction then between these Three Divine Persons if I may so speak is in the manner of their Subsistence That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of Himself the Original Fountain of the Deity not made nor created for then he would be a Creature not a God nor begotten for then he would be a Son not the first Father and Origine of all The Son is of the Father alone which is essential to his being a Son not made nor created for there was no time when he was not as all things made or created must have a beginning but
hold the true Catholick Faith and that the Faith of the Athanasian Creed is that Catholick Faith which is necessary to Salvation 1. As for the first of these I would desire him to consider that though without Holiness no Man shall see God yet no Man is saved by his good Works but by Faith in Christ to say that we shall be saved by Holiness and good Works without Faith in Christ is to assert the Merit of good Works ten thousand times more than ever Papists themselves did The meritorious Works of Popery serve only instead of Penance to keep them out of Purgatory or to shorten their time there they serve instead of that Temporal Punishment which absolved and penitent Sinners must undergo for those sins the Eternal Punishment of which is remitted not for their own meritorious Works but for the merits and expiation of Christ but he who expects to be saved for his good Works without Faith in Christ attributes such a merit to good Works as redeems him from the Wrath of God and the Eternal Punishments due to Sin and purchases Eternal Rewards for him which is somewhat more than the Church of Rome pretends to especially since whatever merit they attribute to good Works they ascribe wholly to the Merits of Christ whose Merits alone have made our good Works meritorious which is very honourable to our Saviour and very Orthodox Divinity in comparison with those who think good Works such meritorious things whatever their Faith be and if he considers this twice I suppose he will confess that Faith in Christ the true Catholick Faith is necessary to Salvation 2. Nay it is necessary before all other things to our Salvation because it is necessary to Baptism which alone puts us into a state of Salvation For he that believes and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned All Christians must confess that there is no other Name given under Heaven whereby Men can be saved but onely the Name of Christ that Faith in Christ in adult Persons is necessary to Baptism that Baptism alone incorporates us into the Body of Christ and puts us into a state of Salvation and therefore that neither Jews nor Turks nor Heathens none but believing and baptized Christians are in a state of Salvation how morally vertuous soever their Lives may be Whoever does not confess this makes nothing of the Covenant of Grace in Jesus Christ nothing of his Sacrifice Priesthood and Intercession makes the Christian Religion nothing but a new and more perfect Sect of Philosophy than either Jews or Heathens taught before whose Condition yet is as safe as the Condition of Christians if they live according to the knowledge they have Our Author then must either renounce the Christian Religion or confess the true Catholick Faith or a true Faith in Christ is before all other things necessary to Salvation because this is that which puts us into a state of Salvation by Christ without which no Man can be saved according to the terms of the Gospel 3. If Faith in Christ be necessary to Salvation I suppose all Men will grant it must be the true Faith in Christ not a false and heretical Faith for that is equivalent to Infidelity there seems to be little difference between not believing in Christ at all and not believing what we ought to believe of him and the belief of which is necessary to Salvation for if we do not believe that of Christ which is necessary to Salvation we may as well believe nothing and then to be sure it concerns us to hold the Catholick Faith whatever that be 4. That the Faith of the Holy Trinity is that true Christian Faith which is necessary to Salvation appears from the Form of Baptism itself for we are baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that is into the Faith and Worship of the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which is the Substance of the Athanasian Creed This is the Baptismal Faith and that certainly is necessary to Salvation if any Faith be Now when we consider that Baptism is our solemn Dedication to God and Admission into Covenant with him to be dedicated to the Son and Holy Ghost in the same manner in the very same act and same form of words whereby we are dedicated to the Father were they not One Supream and Soveraign God with the Father would make any considering Man abhor the Christian Religion as the most open and bare-faced Idolatry as joyning Creatures with God in the most solemn Act of Religion that of dedicating Men to His Worship and Service But not to insist on that now our Author may hence learn that to believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost is necessary to Salvation because it is the Faith of Baptism and if that Exposition which the Athanasian Creed has given of this Faith be the true Catholick Doctrine then that is necessary to Salvation and therefore the Creed begins very properly with asserting the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith if we will be saved which must be as necessary to Salvation as it is to be Christians Which Faith except a Man keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly By keeping this Faith whole and undefiled must be meant if any thing be meant that a Man should believe and profess it without adding to it or taking from it If we take from it we do not keep it whole if we add ought to it we do not keep it undefiled and either way we shall perish everlastingly A Man of ordinary Sense and Candor would have said that to keep this Faith whole and undefiled signified not to corrupt the Faith either by adding to it or taking from it for whatever we add or whatever we take away which does not alter the Essentials of our Faith the Faith remains whole and undefiled still But this would have spoiled his notable Remarks both as to adding and taking away First for adding What if an honest plain Man because he is a Christian and a Protestant should think it necessary to add this Article to the Athanasian Creed I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be a Divine Infallible and Compleat Rule both for Faith and Manners I hope no Protestant would think a Man damned for such addition And if so then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith That is to say it is an addition to the Catholick Faith to own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith As if it were an addition to the Laws of England to own the Original Records of them in the Tower For the Catholick Faith is what we are to believe the Rule of Faith is that Book or Writing wherein this Catholick Faith is to be found and upon the Authority of which we must believe it and therefore what the Catholick Faith is
believed otherwise Pope Leo III assented to the definition of the Council of Aquisgrane An. 809. concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and yet would by no means allow that it should be added to the Creed nor would he deny Salvation to those who believed otherwise but when that Question was asked him returned this Answer That whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the Knowledge of this or knowing it will not believe it cannot be saved but there are many and this among the rest deep Misteries of the Holy Faith which all cannot reach to some by reason of Age others for want of understanding and therefore as we said before he that can and won't cannot be saved And therefore at the same time he commanded the Constantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a Silver Table without the addition of the Filioque nor can any man tell when this was added to the Creed however we never read the Greeks were Anathematized upon this account till Pope Vrban II. 1097. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. 1438 9. Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople thought this Controversie between the two Churches might be reconciled and the Filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the Greek Church As for what he adds that the Greek Church condemned this addition as Heretical I desire to know what Greek Council did this Vossius a very diligent Observer gives no account of it the quarrel of the Greeks with the Latins was That they undertook without the Authority of a General Council to add to the Creed of a General Council when the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon had Anathematized those who did so and therefore for this reason the Greeks Anathematized the Latin Church without declaring the Filioque to be Heretical and as that Learned Man observes this was the true cause of the Schism that the Greeks thought the Pope of Rome and a Western Synod took too much upon themselves to add to the Creed of a General Council by their own Authority without consulting the Eastern Church which was equally concerned in matters of Faith But the Comical part is still behind for he says The Greeks laugh at Athanasius 's menace and say he was drunk when he made the Creed and for this he refers us to Georgius Scholarius or Gennadius who was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Mahomet when he had taken that City I confess I have not read all that Gennadius has Writ and know not where to find this place and he has not thought fit to direct us but this I know that whether Gennadius says this himself or only reports it as the saying of some foolish Greeks for I cannot guess by our Author which it is whoever said it said more then is true for Athanasius neither made the Creed drunk nor sober for as most Learned Men agree he never made it at all though it bears his name but I wish I could see this place in Gennadius for I greatly suspect our Author Gennadius being a very unlikely Man to say any ill thing of Athanasius upon account of the Filioque who himself took the side of the Latin Church in this dispute and as Vossius relates gives Athanasius a very different and more honourable Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Athanasius the Preacher and Confessor of Truth But there is nothing smites me more than to hear this Arian or Socinian or whatever he is affirm That the Greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only For that which is proved clearly and demonstratively I hope is true and then this alone is a confutation of his brief Notes for the Greeks taught and proved demonstratively as he says that the Holy Spirit so proceeds from the Father only as to be of the same Substance and One God with the Father And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church The Catholick Faith I grant is so called with relation to the Catholick Church whose Faith it is and the Catholick Church is the Universal Church or all the true Churches in the World which are all but one whole Church united in Christ their Head the Profession of the true Faith and Worship of Christ makes a true Church and all true Churches are the One Catholick Church whether they be spread over all the World or shut up in any one corner of it as at the first Preaching of the Gospel the Catholick Church was no where but in Iudaea Now as no Church is the Catholick Church of Christ how far soever it has spread it self over the World unless it profess the true Faith of Christ no more is any Faith the Catholick Faith how universally soever it be professed unless it be the true Faith of Christ nor does the true Christian Faith cease to be Catholick how few soever there be who sincerely profess it It is down-right Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vast Numbers of its Professors were there but one true Church in the World that were the Catholick Church because it would be the whole Church of Christ on Earth and were the true Christian Faith professed but in one such Church it would be the Catholick Faith still for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of Christ the sincere belief and profession of which makes a Catholick Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banished from Alexandria in AEgypt where he was Bishop no less than four times whereof the first was by Constantine the Great What shall be done unto Thee thou lying Tongue What impudence is this to think to sham the World at this time a day with such stories as these when the Case of Athanasius is so well known or may be even to English Readers who will take the pains to read his Life written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned Dr. Cave But when he thinks a second time of it will he say that the Church of God in Athanasius's Age was not of the same Faith with him What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers who condemned Arius In which Council Athanasius himself was present and bore a considerable part and so provoked the Arian Faction by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith and his great skill and dexterity in managing that Cause as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles Will he say that Constantine the Great who called the Council at Nice in the Cause of Arius and was so zealous an Asserter of the Nicene Faith banished Athanasius for this Faith No his greatest Enemies durst not make
and whoever rejects them whatever name he goes by can be no better than a Socinian in disguise but however there are no Texts alledged by learned Trinitarians but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned Trinitarians and thus it is as broad as long but it is not the Authority of any modern Expositors which we rely on but their Reason and if a learned Trinitarian should reject any Text without Reason or Learning it signifies no more to us than the Expositions of a learned Socinian when we seek for Authority we go higher to the Primitive Fathers of the Catholick Church and there we find it They not only delivered to us the traditionary Doctrines of a Trinity which had always been taught in the Catholick Church but the Traditionary Exposition of those Scriptures too whereon this Doctrine is founded and they being so near the Head and Fountain of Tradition the Apostolick Age their Authority is venerable and a modest and prudent Man will not reject any Interpretation of Scripture which relates to Articles of Faith and is unanimously delivered by the Ancient Fathers if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense for though a Text should fairly bear two different Interpretations that is most likely to be true which has been from the beginning taught by the Catholick Church And I challenge this Author to name any Text which is alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned Trinitarians which has not been used to the same purpose by many or most or all the ancient Fathers who have alleadged those Texts But his Conclusion from hence that therefore the Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Trinity in Unity because the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts to another Sense is very pleasant and shows what a great Master of Reason he is for his Argument is this the Scripture does not compel us to believe any thing while there are other men who expound the Scripture to a contrary Sense and thus I am sure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing for it will be hard to name any Text which concerns any Article of Faith how plain and express soever it be but what has been expounded to a contrary Sense by one Heretick or other I would ask this Author whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God in his Sense of it that is but One who is God If it does not why does he believe it and insist so peremptorily on it in defiance of the whole Catholick Church and yet how can the Scripture compel him to this when the Catholick Church and the Catholick Doctors in all Ages have expounded Scripture to a contrary sense that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God At this rate when Men differ in their Expositions of Scripture the Scripture does not compel us to believe either and thus notwithstanding the Scripture we may believe nothing If the Scripture have a determined Sense we are bound to believe that Sense and must answer it to God and to our Saviour if we do not whoever expounds it otherwise and therefore when it is said in the Creed that we are compelled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity by the Christian Verity to acknowledge each Person by himself to be God and Lord the meaning is not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it or to expound Scripture to this sense but that the true Sense and Exposition of Scripture does make this Acknowledgment necessary if we will believe as the Scripture teaches and this may be true whatever the Unitarians or any Learned Trinitarians teach He adds That the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not a clash of Reason with Scripture but whether we ought to interpret holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men Now this is all sham and falacy for to expound Scripture by Reason may signifie two very differeent things 1. To use our own Reason to find out the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture 2. To expound Scripture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason In the first sense he expounds Scripture according to Reason who considers the Use and Propriety of Words the Scope and Design of the place what goes before and what follows and how one place of Scripture is consistent with another just in the same way as we find out the sense of any Humane Writing and he who does not thus expound Scripture by Reason expounds it like a fool that is if he put such a sense upon it as the words will not bear or the scope and design of the Text will not admit and as no man would think of who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Text and whether they or we in this sense expound Scripture according or contrary to Reason like fools or like wise men shall be examined presently As for the other Sense of Expounding Scripture according to Reason that is in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason we allow this too so far that we must not expound Scripture to such a sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of Natural Reason for though God reveals such things to us as Natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth can never contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by Natural Reason can never be false in Revelation but then as I observed before we must be sure that there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out of uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge As to keep to the Matter of our present Dispute Natural Reason tells us That there is and can be but One Supreme God the Soveraign Lord of the World and should any man pretend to prove from Scripture that there are Three Gods this would be an express Contradiction to the Natural Belief of One God and therefore we must reject this Sense of Scripture as contrary to Reason but to prove from Scripture that there is but One God and that there are Three who are this One God this is no Contradiction to Reason which teaches but One God for Scripture teaches the same and all Trinitarians acknowledge the same and must do so if they believe the Athanasian Creed and therefore the belief of the Trinity does not contradict the natural belief of One God Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction but what Principle of Natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does
is not meerly as he is the Son of God the second Person in the Trinity for so he is worshipped as One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost but as he is a Mediator or a Mediatory King as he has a Kingdom distinct from the Natural Kingdom of the Father as I have already shown so there is a worship proper to him as Mediator but the Holy Spirit has no distinct Kingdom and therefore no distinct Worship but is worshipped in the Unity of the Godhead and this required no new Command for he who knows that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One Supreme God must worship Father Son and Holy Ghost as One Supreme God 4. His next Argument is against a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead which he says is contrary to the whole Scripture which speaks of God but as One Person and speaks of him and to him by singular Pronouns such as I Thou Me Him His Proofs that the Scripture speaks of God as but One Person are very wonderful His first is that of Iob Will ye speak wickedly for God and talk deceitfully for him Will ye accept his Person will ye contend for God But surely to accept God's Person no more signifies the Personality of the Godhead than to accept the Person of a Man signifies his Human Person the Hebrew is his Face which is far from signifying a Person in the sense we say there are Three Persons in the Godhead To respect the Person of a Man is to do something for him which neither Law nor Justice nor Equity required not because he is a Person which every Man is but from some partial respect we have to his particular Person and therefore to accept the Person of God here signifies to speak wickedly for God which is an absurd and sensless thing as Iob represents it whether the Supreme God be One Person or Three for in this sense of Person One God can be but One Person The other Text that Christ is the express Image of God's Person is as little to the purpose for it is plain the Person of whom the Son is the express Image is the Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but One Person As for his singular Pronouns they prove indeed that there is but One God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead For when the Scripture speaks of God without any particular respect to the distinction of the Persons it must speak but of One God because God is but One and singular Pronouns are most properly applied to One God As for what he objects That no Instance can be given in any Language of Three Persons whoever spoke of themselves or were spoken to by the singular Pronouns I Thou Me Him Thee it were sufficient to answer That there is no other Example in Nature neither of Three Persons who are essentially One and if the manner of speaking must be conformed to the Nature of Things there can be no other Instance of this way of speaking because there is no other Example of this Unity but all Languages speak of One in the singular Number and so the Scripture uses singular Pronouns of One God But this is not the Case for when God speaks of himself he does not speak of himself as Three Persons but as One God and therefore may say I and Me and when the Prophets speak of God or pray to him they pray to him as One God and therefore may say Thou and Him and Thee When Three Persons are One God God may speak of himself or we may speak of or to God either considered as Three Persons or as One God and though Three Persons require the Plural Number yet One God may speak of himself or be spoken to by singular Pronouns 5. He says Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed And I say Had not the Son been God and the Holy Ghost God they would not have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than into the form of Baptism which is the original of the Apostles Creed That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the ancient Records of their Faith but there was no reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church and indeed there was no need of it for the only Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man He concludes That theirs the Socinians is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible The Faith of a Trinity in Unity I hope I have sufficiently vindicated already from Absurdity and Contradiction But it will be worth the while briefly to consider how accountable and reasonable the Socinian Faith is The Socinian Doctrine is That Christ who is called the Son the only begotten Son of God the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person is no more than a meer Man who had no Being till he was Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and is called the Son of God because God formed him by an immediate Power in the Virgins Womb and raised him from the Dead and exalted him to his own right hand in Heaven and that the Holy Spirit is only the Power and Inspiration of God that is is either God himself or the Operation of his Power in Creatures This is their accountable and reasonable Doctrine and to show how very accountable and reasonable it is I come now to draw up my charge against it 1. That it ridicules the Scriptures 2. That it ridicules the whole Jewish oeconomy 3. That it ridicules the Christian Religion 4. That it justifies or at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries The Charge is full enough and I am contented it should pass only for big huffing words till I have proved it and then I hope it may pass for a just Return to the ridiculous Blasphemies of the Brief Notes and Brief History 1. That it ridicules the Scripture by putting either an absurd or a very mean trifling sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired and this I shall give some Instances of in their Expositions of Scripture which I find in the Brief History of the Vnitarians In the second Letter he takes notice of some Texts in the Old Testament which speak of God and in the New Testament are applied to Christ which we think a very good Argument to prove That Christ is that God to whom those Texts belong in the Old Testament for though possibly without such an Application we could not certainly have known that these Texts were
where the Lord of Hosts is said to be a Stumbling-stone and Rock of Offence And another of the same Prophet Behold I lay in Zion for a Foundation a Stone a tried Stone a precious Corner-stone a sure Foundation he that believeth shall not make haste which both St. Paul and St. Peter render with the Septuagint shall not be ashamed Now from hence we learn that the Prophet speaks of the same Stone that the Stumbling-stone and Rock of Offence is the Foundation stone the precious Corner-stone and therefore the Lord of Hosts who is the Stumbling-stone is the precious Corner-stone also And St. Paul and St. Peter tells us that Christ is the Stumbling-stone and that precious Corner-stone of which the Prophets speaks that is that Christ is the Lord of Hosts To whom to Christ coming as unto a living Stone disallowed indeed of Men but chosen of God and precious ye also as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House wherefore also it is contained in Scripture Behold I lay in Sion a chief Corner-stone elect precious and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded or ashamed All that our Historian says to this is That neither St. Paul nor St. Peter cite the words of the Prophet as spoken of Christ but only as in some sense applicable to him namely as Christ was to many a stone of stumbling which is nothing else but to out-face the World with down-right Impudence and to charge the Apostles with abusing Scripture and producing Proofs which are no Proofs St. Paul alleadges this Prophesie to prove that the Infidelity of the Jews and that Offence they should take at Christ was foretold in Scripture which answers that Objection against his being the Messias that the great Body of Israel to whom the Messias was peculiarly promised should reject him when he came which had it not been foretold had been a very unanswerable prejudice and yet if Christ be not the Prophets stumbling Stone this Prophesie does not foretel it St. Peter urges this Prophesie to prove that Christ is the Foundation Corner Stone Elect and Precious on which the Church was to be built but he abuses us also with a sham Proof if this Prophesie were not meant of Christ. And thus these men rather than they will allow the Scripture proofs that Christ is God destroy all the Old Testament proofs of the Truth of Christianity and I am afraid they are able to give us no good proofs of Christianity without them and yet if such Texts as these must pass only for Accommodations and Allusions I know not where they will find any proofs St. Iohn curiously observes the several Circumstances of our Saviour's Death and shows that they were the Accomplishment of ancient Prophesies and among others that of piercing his side with the Souldier's Spear which was foretold by the Prophet Zechary They shall look on me whom they have pierced which is confessed to be spoken of God and here he tells us again That the words in the Prophet are not by St. John interpreted of Christ but accommodated to Christ and his Sufferings And thus as fast as he can one after another he accommodates away all the proofs of Christianity for we may as well prove the Gospel out of Homer by accommodating Homer's Words and Phrases to it and turning it into an Homerical Poem as we know has been done as prove it by accommodating the Phrases and Language of the Old Testament to it which were never intended to signifie any such thing this I think is to ridicule and profane both the Old and New Testament and to overthrow the Authority of both But I am quite tired with this Work and therefore shall pass over his other Old Testament Proofs for what can we say to convince these men that such Old Testament Texts speak of Christ who will not believe the Apostles themselves And to conclude this I shall only give you a Specimen how they deal with the New Testament also in two or three Instances I shall begin with the Form of Baptism Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost All the Fathers have made this an Argument that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God because we are baptized in their Name and we must not be baptized in the Name of any Creature for to be baptized in their Name signifies to be devoted and consecrated by a Sacred and Religious Rite to the Faith Worship and Obedience of Father Son and Holy Ghost and it is Idolatry to joyn Creatures with God in so solemn an Act of Religion in the same Act whereby we give up our selves to God to give up our selves to Creatures in the same Form of words without making any other difference between them but the Order of Persons And it is to no purpose to dispute What is meant by baptizing in the Name for whatever that be it signifies the very same to be baptized in the Name of the Father and to be baptized in the Name of the Son and in the Name of the Holy Ghost our Saviour makes no distinction and we must make none and if Father Son and Holy Ghost be not One God this Form of Baptism destroys the distinction between God and Creatures and devotes us as intirely to Creatures as to God We must consider Baptism as the Sacrament of our Initiation into the Christian Religion and our Admission into the Gospel-Covenant and therefore the Persons in whose Name we are baptized is that God who receives us into Covenant and to whose Worship and Obedience we consecrate our selves Our Historian says That to be baptized in the Name of a Person or Persons is a Rite by which one delivers himself to the Institution Instruction and Obedience of such Person or Persons so that to be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is to profess to be led or guided by them or as Grotius expresses this matter 't is to declare we will admit of no other thing as a part of our Religion but what proceeds from these that is nothing but what is commanded by God or the Father and has been delivered by his Son the Lord Christ and confirmed externally by Miracles and internally with the Witness and Testimony of the Spirit that is by the Power and Inspiration of God This is a very false Account of Grotius and therefore I shall consider it as his own Now I readily grant that Baptism does include our Profession of believing the Gospel and making that the sole Rule of our Faith and Worship those who are baptized do own as Grotius speaks tres dogmatis sui Auctores Three Authors of their Doctrine or Religion Father Son and Holy Ghost but then Baptism being a Religious Rite it is a Religious Profession of this a Religious devoting our selves to them and therefore we give up
there the Effect is as early as its Cause because the Cause cannot subsist without its Effect as the Sun cannot be a Sun without Light and Fire cannot be Fire without Heat And this is the Case here the Son is begotten by the Father and is God of God Light of Light the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially but One God and therefore unless the same One God can be afore and after himself in the Trinity there can be no afore or after but all Three Persons are Coeternal because they are essentially One Eternal God and it is in vain to confound our Minds with conceiving an Eternal Generation for that is as intelligible as an Eternal Being we can see the necessity of both but cannot comprehend either no more than we can Eternity It is demonstrable something must be Eternal and it is as certain that an Eternal Mind eternally knows it self and loves it self for there can be no infinite Mind without a reflex Knowledge of himself which is his Eternal Son nor without the love of himself and his One Image which is the Holy Spirit of which I have sufficiently discoursed already And thus we are come to the last part of our Task what concerns the Incarnation of Christ which after all that has been said to prove Christ to be the Eternal Son of God incarnate will take up no great time for what ever difficulties there may be in the Philosophy of the Incarnation or how God and Man is united into One Person it will not shake my Faith who see a thousand things every day which I can give no Philosophical Account of and which a little Philosophy would teach considering men not to pretend to give any account of and yet we believe our Eyes without understanding the Philosophy of things and why we should not believe a Divine Revelation to without it I know not But let 's hear what he has to say The right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is both God and Man Then the Lord Christ is two Persons for as he is God he is a Person Very right And as he is a Man he is a Person that we deny that he is a distinct Person from the Godhead when united to God But a rational Soul vitally united to a Human Body is a Person Right when it is by it self and so a Soul without a vital Union to a Human Body is a Person and a Beast which has no reasonable Soul but only an Animal Life as a Man has together with a Human Soul is a Person or a Suppositum or what he will please to call it but it is a distinct living subsisting Being by it self but when the Rational and the Animal Life are united in Man he is not two Persons a Rational and an Animal Person but one Person and therefore we neither need own Christ to be two Persons with Nestorius which yet is much more innocent than to deny his Godhead nor deny him either to be God or Man for he is God-Man in one Person as a Man is a Reasonable and Animal Creature united into One Person though we may find the reasonable and animal life subsisting apart and when they do so they are two and but one when united This is explained in the Creed by the Union of Soul and Body for as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so God and Man is One Christ which he says vainly enough is the only offer at Reason that is to be found in the whole Creed Well! we are glad any thing will pass with him though it be but for an offer at reason and let us hear how he confutes it 1. He says In the Personal Vnion of a Soul with a Body the Vnion is between Two finite things but in the pretended Personal Vnion of God to Man and Man to God the Vnion is between finite and infinite which on the Principles of the Trinitarians I wish he had told us what those Principles are is impossible For we must either suppose that finite and infinite are commensurate that is equal which every one knows is false or that the finite is united but to some part of the infinite and is disjoyned from the rest which all Trinitarians deny and abhor I beg your pardon Sir they were never so silly as to think of it but they abhor to see such Sacred Mysteries treated with so much Ignorance and Impudence Since he is for confuting the Doctrine of the Trinity by raising Difficulties about the manner of this Union how God and Man are united into One Person I desire he would first try his skill in inferior things and tell me how the parts of Matter hang together which though every Body thinks he knows I doubt no Body does Then I would desire to know how Soul and Body are united how a Spirit can be fastened to a Body that it can no way release it self though never so desirous of it till the vital Union which no Body knows what it is is dissolved Why the Soul can leave the Body when the Body is disabled to perform the Offices of Life but cannot leave it before The Soul I say which we Trinitarians believe to be a Spirit which can pass through Matter which cannot be touched or handled or held by Matter and yet feels the impressions of Matter is pleased or afflicted with them and sympathizes with the Body as if it could be cut by a Knife or burnt with a Fever or torn by wild Beasts as the Body is And since he apprehends there can be no Union without Commensuration and therefore a finite and infinite Being cannot be united because they are not Commensurate I desire to know whether he thinks the Soul and Body are Commensurate whether the Soul have parts as the Body has which answer to every part of the Body and touch in every Point These will be very new Discoveries if he can say any thing to them if he can't it is his best way to deny the Union of Soul and Body because he cannot understand it to assert that man has no Soul but only a Body because it is impossible that Matter and Spirit should ever be united into one Person and Life which is to the full as unreasonable as to deny the Personal Union of God and Man because he cannot understand how finite and infinite which are not Commensurate nor can be because neither a finite nor infinite Spirit have any parts to be measured can be united But in great good Nature he has found out a Salvo for the Trinitarians That God indeed is infinite and every Soul and Body even that of Christ finite yet the whole God and the whole Man are united because as the whole Eternity of God doth Coexist to a moment of time so the whole Immensity of God is in every Mathematical point of place
only in the superior and governing Nature as it ought to be because in that the Natures are united into One Person and that must govern and take care of the whole Thus the Mind in man is conscious to the whole man and to all that is in man to all the motions of Reason and Sense but Sense is not conscious to all the Actings of Reason which is the superior Faculty though it is conscious as far as is necessary to receive the Commands and Directions of Reason for the Body moves at the command of the Will and it is so far conscious to its Commands Thus in the Person of Christ who is God-man the Divine Word is conscious to his whole Person not only to himself as the Divine Word but to his whole Humane Nature not by such Knowledge as God knows all men and all things but by such a Consciousness as every Person has of himself But it does not hence follow that the Humane Nature is conscious to all that is in the Word for that destroys Humane Nature by making it Omniscient which Humane Nature cannot be and its being united to the Person of the Word does not require it should be for an inferior Nature is not conscious to all that is in the superior Nature in the same Person This Union of Natures does require that the inferior Nature be conscious to the superior as far as its Nature is capable and as far as the Personal Union requires for so Sense is in some degree conscious to Reason and it cannot be one Person without it And therefore the Human Nature in Christ is in some measure in such a degree as Human Nature can be conscious to the Word feels its Union to God and knows the Mind of the Word not by External Revelations as Prophets do but by an Inward Sensation as every man feels his own Thoughts and Reason but yet the Human Nature of Christ may be ignorant of some things notwithstanding its Personal Union to the Divine Word because it is an inferior and subject Nature And this I take to be the true account of what our Saviour speaks about the Day of Judgment Of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the Angels in Heaven but my Father only where our Saviour speaks of himself as a man and as a man he did not at that time know the Day of Judgment though personally united to the Divine Word who did know it for as he is the Divine Word so our Saviour tells us That he seeth all that the Father doth and therefore what the Father knows the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father must know also But yet the Human Nature of Christ was conscious to all the actings of the Divine Word in it as we may see in the Story of the Woman having an Issue of Blood twelve years who in the midst of a great Crowd of People came behind him and touched his Garment and was immediately healed our Saviour presently asked who touched him and when all denied it and Peter wondered he should ask that Question when the Multitude thronged him and pressed him Iesus said some body hath touched me for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me he felt the miraculous Power of the Divine Word working in him as a man feels what is done in himself This I think gives some account how God and Man may be united into One Person which though it be a great Mystery which we cannot fully comprehend yet is not wholly unintelligible much less so absurd and contradictious as this Author pretends As for what he adds about believing and professing this Faith let him apply it to Christ's being the Messias or any other Article of the Creed and see what Answer he will give to it for what if men can't believe it are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it whether we can or no doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation No! but if it be credible and what a wise man may believe and what he has sufficient Evidence to believe he shall be damned not because he can't but won't believe it But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it if he profess against his Conscience he sins and if notwithstanding this a man must either profess or be damned then God requires some men to sin in order to their Salvation God requires no man to profess against his Conscience but he shall be damned for not believing it not for not professing what he does not believe it looks like a Judgment upon these men that while they can talk of nothing less than the severest Reason they impose upon themselves or hope to impose upon the World by the most Childish Sophistry and Nonsense And now I shall leave our Note-maker to harangue by himself and perswade Fools if he can that the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is nothing but Popery or must be parted with for the sake of Iews or be made a Complement to the Morocco Ambassador and his admired Mahomet or must be sacrificed to Peace and Unity and to secure men from damnation who will not believe I will not envy him the satisfaction of such Harangues it being all the Comfort he has for I am pretty confident he will never be able to Reason to any purpose in this Cause again Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be World without end Amen THE END ADVERTISEMENT A Preservative against Popery in two Parts with a Vindication in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran a Jesuit 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church 4 o. A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor Novemb. 4. 1688. 4 o. A Practical Discourse concerning Death The Fifth Edition 8 o. The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England with a more particular Respect to the Oath lately enjoyned of Allegiance to Their Present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary The Fifth Edition 4 o. By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Printed for W. Rogers The Creed Brief Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Notes Answer Vossius de tribus Symbel dissert 3 Cap. 29 30. Cap. 31. Ibid. Cap. 48. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 44. Dissert 2. c. 1. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Answer Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Aug. lib. contra Serm. Arrian c. 16. Creed Notes Answer Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer Creed Notes Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Cont. Arium Disput. Tom. 1. p. 116. Paris 1627. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit non existendo per se pater sapientia Deinde si ita est filius quoque ipse