AN ANSWER TO AN Heretical Book Called the Naked Gospel Which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxford Aug. 19. 1690. With some Reflections on Dr. Bury's New Edition of that BOOK To which is added a short HISTORY of Socinianism By William Nicholls M. A. Fellow of Merton College in Oxford and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Ralph Earl of Mountague 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Nomoc. Tit. 12. c. 2. LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. TO THE Right Honourable RALPH EARL of MOUNTAGUE c. My Lord I Am induced to lay these Papers at your Lordship's Feet both from the Relation I bear to your Lordship which does exact all my Labours as a Tribute and Acknowledgment of my Duty and Obligation as also from the Knowledge of the great Affection and Zeal You have always continued to shew for the True Religion assuring my self that whatsoever shall be offered in Defence of that especially against the now growing Heresie of the Times will find no small Acceptance in your Lordship's Favour It is sufficiently known my Lord what a signal Example of True Christian Piety and Courage against the Anti-trinitarian Heterodoxes was shewn by the excellent Sir Ralph Winwood your Lordship's Grandfather when he was Embassadour in Holland for King James I. in so strenuously opposing Vorstius the Socinian's Accession to the Professorship of Leyden whose Advice if the States had then been so prudent as to have taken the Socinian Heresies had not made the Progress in the World as now they have from the Lectures of him and his Successours in that Chair And therefore my Lord I am encouraged to think that your Lordship who does possess all the Noble Endowments of that great and good Statesman your Ancestor will favourably look upon that which is designed against those Heretical Tenets the Seeds of which have been mostly sown in this Nation by the Books of Vorstius and his Successours though often under Colour of Opinions of a more specious Name May it therefore please your Lordship to accept these my poor Endeavours in Defence of the True Faith which I have here presumed to entitle to your Lordship's Protection and be pleased to look on them as a small Token of the Duty and Service which shall be always owing to your Lordship from My Lord Your Lordship 's Most Dutiful Chaplain and most Obedient Servant W. Nicholls THE PREFACE THE occasion of writing this Treatise was to hinder the mischief that the Book it is designed to Answer was like to do which having lain so many Months without an Answer I did reasonably presume there was none design'd and therefore I thought such a one as I could supply would be better than none at all I should never have troubled the World with this if I had had the least Item of Mr. Long 's design but that was perfectly unknown to me till these Papers were wrote out fair for the Press As to the Method I have taken in the answering this Book I have followed the Authour in his own and have given his Titles to each of the Chapters In those Chapters in which he most impugns our Saviour's Divinity I have traced him step by step and given an Answer to every Shadow of an Argument that he brings In other Chapters where there are only oblique stroaks against the Doctrine of the Trinity or which are only Introductory to his main Design I have only summed up the Substance of them and so given an Answer to them in general or at least to so much of them as seemed to make against the Truth of this Doctrine or any other important Truth of our Religion Now it may by some perhaps be thought unfair when I use these Expressions The Authour would insinuate would pretend c. when he does not in express Terms assert that thing in his Book But it must be considered That it was the Authour's design not to let his Book appear with too Heretical a Face but to lay his Premises so that the Reader should often draw his Consequences for him without his setting them down in express Words This is a Subtilty which is common to all such sort of Writers that dare not speak out their full Minds though by the way I think this Authour has as little minced the matter as any But however I have carefully endeavoured not to pervert his Sense but to take his words in that meaning which any indifferent Reader would think the Author designed they should be understood in If I have any where mist his Meaning 't is thro' Mistake and not thro' Wilfulness And in truth I am not absolutely sure after the greatest Diligence that I have always hit his Sense for he has a peculiar way of Writing different from all the Writers of the age his Periods are long and uneven filled with odd sort of Similes and affected Phrases broken with unnatural Parentheses and almost constant Hyperbatons which to be sure will occasion Obscurity in his Book so that if I have mistaken his Meaning upon this account he is to charge that upon himself and not upon his Answerer In short I have performed this Task with all the fairness I could with a design not to triumph over my Adversary but to evince the Truth to vindicate the Honour of my Blessed Saviour which was here so highly calumniated and to assert the Doctrine of the Holy undivided Trinity into the belief of which I was baptized and in which I hope by God's grace to die THE CONTENTS OF THE ANSWER to the PREFACE THE Doctrine of the Trinity could give no incouragement to Mahometanism The true Reasons of the great prevailing of Mahomet's Religion Animadversion upon the Authour's mistake about the establishment of Image-worship Vpon his saying Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith The Heterodox greater furtherers of Mahometanism than the Orthodox That the belief of the Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion That the requiring a belief of this Doctrine does not suppose unlearned Men to understand all the disputes about it The Socinian Doctrines much fuller of niceties than the Orthodox CHAP. I. Necessary to be believed and necessary to Salvation not the same The chief Rules of Christianity not easily discernible by the light of nature by instance of Tully and Aristotle Doctrine of the Trinity not contrary to the fewness of Christian Precepts How all the Gospel is Faith and Repentance CHAP. II. That we are justified by Faith alone proved by Scripture Antiquity c. This Faith ought to be Orthodox in all fundamentals The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as to justify Men by it CHAP. III. What natural Faith is Faith under the Gospel is an inspired habit or grace proved by Scripture Antiquity c. The Faith of Abraham and the
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
our Church speaks spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith in so much that a true and lively Faith may be known by them as a Tree is discerned by its Fruit. But still it is Faith not works that do justifie for they having no intrinsick value of their own cannot conferr it on any but Faith alone which takes hold as some speak of the all-sufficient merits of our Blessed Saviour Or as our Church speaks sends us directly to Christ for the remission of our Sins and by which we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy and of the remission of our Sins which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth therefore the Scripture useth to say That Faith without Works doth justifie Not that even Faith it self is a proper and necessary cause of Justification but that it has pleased God to accept it as a cause or means by embracing or taking hold of the merits of Christ which are the true proper meritorious cause of Justification Which justification or righteousness which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits embraced by Faith is taken accepted and allowed of by God as our perfect and full Justification And this is the reason that the Gentlemen of the Authour's persuasion are so unwilling to have Faith onely to justifie Secondly This ought to be an Orthodox Faith in all Fundamentals at least All the admirable Effects which the Scripture does attribute to Faith must be understood of a true Faith such as is agreeable to God's word which is to be the rule of our Faith and not of a false or Heterodox Faith which any one takes up from a Party of Men or from his own Imagination A Heterodox Faith is no more Faith than a dead man or a painted man is a Man they agree in one common equivocal Name 't is true and in nothing else So that an Heterodox Faith can no more pretend to those supernatural Effects which a true Faith by God's grace does produce than a dead Man can pretend to all the Properties and Operations of a live one There is but one Faith as well as one Baptism so that to hope to be justified by a false or another Faith is as unreasonable as to expect to come into the Church by another Baptism So that they that teach a Justification by works or any other Faith than an Orthodox one do themselves for ought as I see teach another Gospel Thirdly The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as that he should make this the great Means of Justification And here I hope to give an Answer to the Authour's Dilemma and to shew that our Faith in Christ is not irrational and then we are no Fools and as for our merit by Faith we are far from pretending to it we acknowledge it as an infinite mercy of our gracious God that he will accept our Faith in Christ's blood for our Justification and do not go about to argue the worth of it which is none And as for the grounds of our Faith in Christ for Justification I know not what can be more reasonable than to expect only to have our weak Performances accepted for the sake of his all-sufficient Merits And of all our Actions that we can perform I know not what can be more pleasing and acceptable in the sight of God than for an humble and desponding Christian considering his own unworthiness and the insufficiency of his Repentance it self and all other Vertues to incline God to mercy so far as for their sakes to accept him for just and innocent he as the last refuge he hath quitteth all worth and merit in himself and fleeth with a full and undoubting Faith in all God's revelations and a firm confidence in all his promises unto the free grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus and hopes for the sake of his Righteousness alone that he will justifie his imperfect Performances This certainly when we have done the utmost of our Endeavours is more pleasing to God than any action we can do more For if we could be justified by our works it would tempt us to reflect with Pride upon our vertuous Actions but this teaches us a pious despondency in our selves and to cast all our hopes upon our blessed Saviour And this is the summ of the Apostles Arguments Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith not of your selves nor of works least any one should boast And the learned Cassander though a Papist says thus much in favour of this Doctrine of the Protestants that in this Question by the word Faith they mean only the grace of God which is correspondent to faith quae fidei ex adverso respondet and to be justified by faith alone signifies the same as by grace alone in opposition to all kind of works CHAP. III. What figure Faith made in natural Religion OUR Authour in the beginning of this Chapter lays down Faith as a duty in natural Religion that it is a branch of Justice by which we pay to God what is due to his Veracity that this was before all positive Law and that upon this the Gospel is built because the Faith of Abraham which is recommended for our pattern Rom. 4. was nothing else but this Justice that the lack of this Faith was reproved by the Angel in Sarah and was punished in Lot's Wife Gen. 18. and in the incredulous Lord 2 King 7. And that this is the Faith lastly which is commended in the Worthies mentioned Heb. 11. And last of all he endeavours to shew the excellency of Abraham's Faith to consist in believing God against so many difficulties from this natural notion of his Veracity Any one that understands the nature of the Authour's Book will easily see into his design here which is to bring down all Faith to be a meer Creature of Reason to be no longer that which the Schools call an infused Habit or the inspiration of God but only a bare rational belief upon divine Testimony Now as to his notion of Faith its being a branch of Justice and that by the light of nature we are taught to believe God upon his Testimony this is in some measure most certainly true as appears by the practice of the Heathens themselves who had nothing but the light of nature to walk by in their believing their Oracles Auguries Prophesies c. and in suiting their actions according to them So that 't is plain that natural Religion tells us God is to be believed upon his Testimony so that when a Man under natural Religion does believe any thing upon God's Testimony our Authour may if he pleases call this Faith But Theological Faith or Faith under the Gospel is quite of another kind this is not only an assent of the understanding but a divine Grace or Habit infused though our Authour would have them the same by saying the Gospel is built upon this and moreover That Faith in Abraham
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
it from hence follows That they must be saved by a Faith in Christ or else they would be saved by Faith in another Name I say They must be saved by Faith in his name for that is the onely Means of Salvation God has proposed That was one of the express terms of Reconciliation agreed upon with the Father to be performed on Man's part so that they could reap no benefit from this Covenant without performing that condition As to his other Instances to prove Faith in the old Testament to be only a natural Faith as of Enoch Moses Josuah Rahab c. I answer First 'T is very certain that the word Faith in Scripture is taken in very diverse acceptations sometimes for the Profession of the Gospel sometimes for a belief of Christ's being able to cure Diseases sometimes for a trust and reliance upon God's promises in general which are all distinguished from the particular reliance upon God's mercy and Promises through the Merits of Jesus Christ which is the only true justifying Faith Now 't is true the Apostle in the eleventh of the Hebrews where he reckons up all those eminent examples of Faith does not understand by Faith here strictly the justifying Faith but only a firm reliance upon God's promises that he will in his good time deliver his Servants and therefore he urges these precedents of Faith and trusting in God to encourage the Christians to a chearful undergoing of their Sufferings and a perseverance in their Belief that God will shortly deliver them by destroying the Jews which were their bitterest Enemies for in the Verses immediately preceding this Chapter he comforts his fainting Converts in these words Yet a little while and he that shall come will come and will not tarry Now the just shall live by Faith but if any Man draw back my Soul shall have no pleasure in him By which it is plain That the Examples that are afterwards brought to comfirm those wavering Christians in this sort of Faith or Perseverance in their Sufferings must be famous for their Perseverance in Afflictions upon account of this Faith or reliance upon God's promises to deliver them and that this sort of Faith is that which is chiefly recommended here But then Secondly It no ways follows that these good men whose examples are here proposed had no other Faith but this These and all other good men under the old Testament had a formal Faith in the Messias or Christ Jesus which is the true justifying Faith Moses wrote of Christ Act. 3. 2 to the end as our Saviour tells the Jews that they might believe on him Joh. 5. 46. And many Prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which they saw Matt. 13. 17. and that many Kings have desired it Luk. 10. 24. Jacob when he was dying said that he had waited for the Salvation of the Lord Gen. 49. 18. Anna the Prophetess spake of Christ to all them that looked for redemption at Jerusalem Luk. 2. 38. Philip said that he had found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write Joh. 1. 45. The Samaritan Woman knew that Christ cometh Joh. 4. 25. St. Paul speaks in his Oration to Agrippa of the Promise made unto the Father unto which the Twelve Tribes instantly serving God day and night hope to come Act. 26. 6. From all which it is plain That all these good Servants of God did believe in Christ the Saviour of the World and that this Faith of theirs was imputed unto them for Righteousness And so now what is become of our Authour 's natural Faith which he makes to be the Mother of the Evangelical The Faith of these good Men was the gift of God as well as ours they were justified by Faith and so are we Gal. 3. 8. they live by Faith in Christ Jesus as well as we they disclaimed all righteousness in works as well as we so that if theirs be a natural Faith ours must be so too And so now by our Authour 's natural Faith and other Mens moral grace we are in a fair way to have all Christianity dwindled into downright Paganism CHAP. IV. That Credulity is not Faith but an opposite Vice OUR Authour being resolved to carry on his notion of natural Faith and to make it a compleat Heathen Virtue has resolved to bring it to the test of the Heathen Philosophy and to make it to suit the better with the Aristotelian Vertues has gotten it two extream Vices to surround it Infidelity in the defect and Credulity in the excess But 't is Credulity is the Vice that our Authour has the pique against and therefore spends all this Chapter to prove that Credulity is not Faith And this we could readily have granted him without all his pains of proving it Now one would think that this was easy enough to prove and yet he has unluckily failed in the attempt For instead of proving that Credulity is not Faith which is easy enough of all Conscience to do he first goes to prove that Credulity is an excess of Faith as Fool-hardiness is of Valour or Prodigality of Bounty And secondly That they that believe contrary to reason are guilty of Credulity Now one would think that when our Authour had before laid down that Faith was only Justice to God he would make Credulity which he would have the excess of this Justice to be summum jus and so consequently to be summa injuria towards him and this he should do if he kept up to his own Rules and the analogy of these moral Vertues But he very fairly lets that alone and falls again to proving that which no body will deny That Men must not believe in contradiction to their reason in compliance with any humane Authority Now for ought that the Authour has gained of his point in this Chapter he might as well have proved that a Bear was not a Man or a Man was not a Mouse all that ever he could propose to himself was to insinuate into his unwary Readers that our Faith in the Blessed Trinity is not Faith but Credulity and that we are therefore Credulous because he would suppose we ground that Faith only upon humane Authority by which 〈◊〉 means chiefly the Authority of ancient Councils Therefore what 〈◊〉 shall say to this Chapter I shall reduce to two heads and shew First That Credulity is not excess of divine Faith Secondly That an acquiescence in the determinations of General Councils in matter of Faith is not Credulity First That Credulity is not an excess of divine Faith Credulity is a Vice by which we easily give our assent to the relation of another without just reasons and motives for it Now this Vice in its ordinary notion is only opposite to that just humane belief that is owing to one another as we are Men. For humane Faith or Belief of what another Man says when neither the matter it self nor the Relater is liable to 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