〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter but otherways they decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius that we may not through want of words call God under three Names but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what other use do we desire to make of them than this Indeed we will allow the Doctor that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done or more His good Council of Sirmium published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God and the famous Council of Ariminum did the like Next he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rendring it Substance which bears too great a Cognation with matter But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically when we know 't is used so as we do when it is used properly so that 't is a silly exception against this word to say it is Metaphorical for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically ten times as many words as we have would not serve us But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is all the harm that is done then Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike and therefore they must have the same signification Aquinas defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being by which it is by its self and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject and Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that subsists by its self which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence and so Suidas to the same purpose So that if the Latins and the Greeks understand the same thing as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia So again I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona if the same thing be understood by both Words as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand Indeed the Latins at first did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it because they generally translated that word by Substantia who by the scantiness of their Language could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance and not by Persona or Substantia and therefore to assert three Hypostasis was the same with them as to make three Gods Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word did occasion some contention for a while till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 and then they came to a right understanding and ever after both Latins and Greeks used the word alike Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis as Acacius and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople and the Eusebians in the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia but that I hope will be no prejudice against it for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery we only ought to take care to understand and them aright which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity which because he will not have it be mysterious he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature for he says the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth There are Three Persons that bear witness c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration but whatever we may expect from him hereafter since this wonderful Illumination I am sure what he has given us in this Chapter is far enough from it He tells us That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind Reason and Power the Reason or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind the Father both which are imperfect unless perfected by Power or Action which is the Holy-Ghost Now is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable both to the Holy Scripture and the Church of England is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame which he so boasts of They are old Materials indeed as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp but neither older nor newer than their Heresies For I pray what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's The Sabellians taught That the Father Son and Holy-Ghost were the same so that there were Three Names in One Person and as in a Man there is Body Soul and Spirit or Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Body is as it were the Father the Soul the Son and that which is the Spirit in Man is the Holy-Ghost in the Deity All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity is That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture Nay the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal for Body Soul and Spirit are more distinct than Mind Reason and Operation So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism as he pretends he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie But after all what can we make of our Author's Trinity which any Vnitarian will not agree to Mind Reason and Action why are not all these in every Man and every rational Being as well as in God and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings Besides Mind Reason and Energy or Action are but divers Modus of the same thing Mind is the rational Principle simply considered Reason is the same Soul considered Discursive or Reasoning and Action or Energy is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence There every Person is by a proper personal difference distinguished from
failed in the former for if I mistake not his Confidence has generally the transcendent of his Sincerity which is the common fate of all Hereticks His Queries are these 1. What was that Gospel which our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to be believed 2. What alterations or additions have after Ages made in it 3. What Advantage or Damage hath thereupon ensued Now as to these Queries I am willing to follow him in the search of them and I pray God to give him grace to be better resolved in them hereafter than he was or at least would be thought to be when he was writing this Book And so I shall take my leave of his Preface AN ANSWER TO THE Naked Gospel CHAP. I. What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to Salvation HERE the Authour shews a little Sophistry whilst in his Query at first he says necessary to be believed but in his transcribing it in the Front of this Chapter he says necessary to Salvation The first expression he uses as the more soft to make his Queries as they lie together seem more reasonable the second he makes use of as the more harsh thereby to insinuate the uncharitableness of the Orthodox who make a right Belief of the Trinity necessary to Salvation Now though we will not quarrel with the Authour about this change of his Terms which is never to be allowed in fair Disputes especially in the Question it self which is to be discussed yet we must allow a great deal of Difference between a thing 's being necessary to be believed and being necessary to Salvation A thing may be necessary to be believed when it is a certain Truth plainly revealed in Scripture so that a man cannot in all points believe aright without the belief of that too and the belief of that Point is necessarily required to make him a full compleat Orthodox Believer but then a thing is necessary for Salvation when it is so of the very Fundamentals of Religion that the Scripture does not allow of Salvation without the belief of this but whether the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity be of this necessity is another dispute only from hence it appears That necessity of believing and necessity in order to Salvation are not equivalent Expressions and which I am persuaded the Authour did not use without design The Authour in the beginning of this Chapter gives an account of the excellence of the Christian Religion and that it was propagated by our Saviour to deliver us from the discipline of the Ceremonial Law and to exalt natural Religion to its utmost perfection and so far right Then he goes farther to tell us that its Doctrines were the same which were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant minds that every one without any Instructer might read and understand And so with this notion of the Christian Religion in his head and this Test as he calls it in his hand very champion-like as he safely may 〈…〉 1. What was the Gospel which our Saviour and his Apostles preached And here our Authour to make short work at first dash reduces the Doctrines to Two Faith and Repentance and then to Faith and no Repentance and then again to Repentance and no Faith he might as well have rung the changes once more and have reduced it to no Faith and no Repentance and then he had cut the Gospel short enough Now from all this he would make us believe That the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity which the Orthodox require to be believed of good Christians is contrary to what our Saviour required of his Followers Now here are Three things which lack a little animadversion First His saying that the Doctrines of Christianity were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant Men's minds that every one without any â—â—structor might read and understand them Secondly That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to this Plainness Thirdly That this Doctrine is contrary to the sewness of the Christian Precepts As to his First assertion I will readily acquit our Authour of Socinianism as to this point for the Gentlemen of that persuasion are generally so civil to our Saviour notwithstanding their depriving him of his Divinity as to allow him to be a distinct Legislator from Moses not only to have rectified and improved the old Law but to have given new precepts and to have advanced Morality to that height and perfection which it could never have come up to without such Revelation But our Authour here would have our Blessed Saviour who himself tells us that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the Law and to compleat it and of whose Doctrines the Apostles give the great Eulogiums of a spiritual Law and a perfect Law only to have told the World something which they knew well enough before and which any Ignorant Man in our Author's phrase could understand without an Instructor Who the Authour calls ignorant Men I know not I am sure some Men of the greatest natural Knowledge have not been able by the light of Nature to come up to the Knowledge of some of those Laws which our Saviour does recommend in his Sermon upon the Mount The Jews who one would think should be most knowing in these Truths as having the assistance of so many particular Revelations yet they lived in opinions contrary to them all as appears by the whole tenor of that Discourse of our Saviour and even the most Learned of the Heathen were far from embracing the generality of them 'T would be too long here to shew the great defect of the Heathen Philosophy in respect of this admirable Lecture of our Saviour But to let our Authour know how far ignorant Men are from coming up by the pure light of reason to the Knowledge of these Laws let him consider how much Aristotle and Cicera two Men of the greatest strength of natural Reason perhaps that ever were in the world how much I say these great men were mistaken in the Rules of Charity which our Blessed Saviour does deliver He commands us to love our enemies to do good to them that hate us Matth. 5. 44. But Aristotle tells us that That man is void of all sense and pain that though he does forbear to be angry does not seek revenge But 't is the part of a Slave being contumeliously used to bear it So Cicero among the rights of Nature places Revenge by which says he we propel an Injury or an Affront And again in one of his Epistles to Atticus he shews his Prectice as well as his Opinion I hate the man and I will hate him and I wish I could be revenged of him Now I suppose Cicero and Aristotle were none of the most ignorant men and if they could not search out these Truths without an Instructor I cannot imagine how our Authour 's ignorant Men should So that in short this opinion of our Authour 's is
Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel who relates this matter understood by the Son of God was an Angel who from their nigh Conversation with God from the great Portion of Happiness and Glory he communicates to them and their so resembling him by their Purity and the Spiritualness of their Nature and from their living in Heaven with him like Children under the wing of their Parent from these and the like circumstances they were and not improperly called the Sons of God as we find in many places of Scripture as Psal 82. I said ye were Angels or the Children of the Most High So Job 1. 6. There was a day when the Sons of God or Angels presented themselves before the Lord. And the LXX translate this very place in Daniel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the Fourth was like the Angel of God So that we must grant That the Son of God here mentioned was an Angel of God But our Blessed Saviour was the Son of God in another manner than his for his Sonship is not founded upon any such Analogy as theirs is but upon the eternal generation of the Father for he being made so much better than the Angels as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they Heb. 1. 4. In short 't is impossible that our Saviour's Sonship should be such a Sonship as that of the Angels because the Apostle spends this whole Chapter to prove him a Person distinct from and above the nature of Angels and does besides set the Son of God in direct opposition to the Angels of God And of the Angels he saith c. v. 7. But unto the Son he saith c. v 8. When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world he saith Let all the Angels of God worship him v. 6. So that Christ's Sonship must be of another kind than that of the Angels or else there would be no ground for their contradistinction unless he was in a peculiar manner the Son of God in a supereminent extraordinary way not at all common to them The Authour having made these Remarks upon this Title of our Saviour The Son of God he proceeds to reckon up some others as the Messias or Christ Onely begotten Son of God which Characters he allows to speak a Person of unmeasurable Greatness a Person like his Emblem the Light so glorious that by our most intent view we cannot discover any thing of it but this That we cannot discover Now for all our Authour's haste one would imagine that something was discoverable in our Saviour by these Eulogies that God did design to manifest or discover something to us of him by these Revelations and not to make Revelations of things that were not revealable 'T is not to be expected indeed that by the help of Revelation we should dive into the Nature of our Saviour's eternal Essence for we are so far from a possibility of doing that that we are ignorant of the Essential Constitutions of the most inconsiderable Being we are conversant with But though we are ignorant of this yet we can tell when 't is revealed to us by God what kind of Nature our Saviour's is whether finite or infinite whether divine or humane The Gloriousness of his Nature does not so dazzle our Eyes as to make us confound distinct and express Idea's I have a certain though not an adequate Idea or Notion of God as a Being infinite incorporeal c. And when I am informed by Revelation tâ—at such a Person is that infinite incorporeal Being or that he has in such Revelation those Characters ascribed to him as are inseparable from the Divine Nature I must conclude That such a one is a Person of the Divine Nature such an infinite incorporeal c. Being which is my Notion of God Indeed the gloriousness of this Being keeps Men from discovering its Essence and from prying into its Nature but yet we may observe such Marks and Properties in it so as to have a distinct Conception of it from all other Beings in the World The Sun is a glorious Body and the more we strive to pry into its Constitution by gazing on it the more we are blinded and what then don 't we know the Sun when we see it for all this because our Eyes are so weak that we cannot stare into the Furnace of the Sun must we therefore take it for a Candle The Person of our Saviour is glorious and if it were a thousand times less glorious than it is I might not understand its Nature but when I am told that this Person is God that he is one of the Persons of the Divine Nature my Understanding tells me very clearly That all the marks and properties I have in my Mind of the Divine Nature must be attributed to this Person and though I understand nothing of his Essence or the precise modus of his Hypostasis yet I am sure he is that Being which I have a certain Idea of and which I call God So that 't is a great Fallacy in the Authour to say we don't know what our Saviour is because we cannot dive into his Essence for our discriminative Knowledge of one thing from another is not by discovering the Essences or internal Constitutions of them but by regarding their outward marks and properties and these every one has a Knowledge of for a Child knows a Rose from a Stone as well as a Philosopher though it knows not the Qualities and internal Constitutions of either Therefore when I am infallibly informed that such a Person is God I am infallibly assured he is that kind of Being I have the fore-mentioned Idea of though I am infinitely short of understanding its Nature II. Our Authour now comes to shew what is meant by believing in his Person which he branches into Two Parts First Believing in him with respect to his word Second In respect to his Person The First of which onely he speaks to in this Chapter and says that Christ is to his Followers as the Sun to Travellers 'T is no matter what they think of its magnitude or whether they think it be no bigger than a Bushel it guides them all alike and thus it is he says with the Sun of Righteousness 't is no matter what we believe him to be if we have but a Practical Faith which is all our Saviour he says requires And this he attempts to prove out of Joh. 10. a place than which one would have thought he should rather have chosen any Text in the New Testament besides How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus said I told you by calling God my Father and ye believe me not Joh. 10. 24 25. And presently after he tell them I and my Father are one v. 30. at which they took up stones to stone him saying thou being a man makest thy self God Now what can the Authour draw from this Why he says our
three Individuums of a Species but then they must be carried no further than it was meant this illustration should go for to expect an universal similitude is rather to expect a sameness than a likeness And now if Men should take the boldness to rack and tenter and sport themselves with the Similes and Parables in the New Testament of our Saviour's Church Doctrines Kingdom and the like as our late Socinian Pamphlets have done these of the ancient Fathers I dare say they might with as great ease ridicule the whole Christian Religion as they do this Doctrine of the Trinity As to what the Authour says of the word Mystery which he calls an impregnable Fort and the Papists Cock-Argument for Transubstantiation and his saying the contradictions are no less in Transubstantiation than the Trinity this is all bold and impudent Assertion without proof and therefore requires no Answer but if any one has a mind to see all these Objections for ever silenced let him read the two incomparable Dialogues printed in the time of the late Popish Controversy and Entituled the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Well but the Authour says if the Trinity be a Mystery why should we dispute any longer about it To dispute concerning a Mystery says he and at the same time acknowledge it a Mystery is a contradiction as great as any in the greatest Mystery I see our Authour is all for contradictions and will have no Mystery without them I thought a Mystery had been an unintelligible Truth and not a contradictious falsity But however why should we not dispute concerning a Mystery If the Mysterious Truth be denied it is to be defended as well as other truths it is not the less a Truth because it is mysterious any more than a Conclusion in Algebra is not true because I do not understand it But besides such a truth has more reason to be contended for as it is of greater importance and such we have proved this Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be Indeed if Men did dispute about a Mystery as a Mystery there would be something in the Authour's Objection for then Men would pretend to understand something by their Disputes whose name imported it was not to be understood But there is no such thing in the Arguments of the Orthodox for the defence of the Trinity they do not dispute this Doctrine as a Mystery but as a Truth which in some measure may be understood they do not dispute about the modus of the Trinity which is unintelligible but about the existence of it which is a Truth can be understood they do not pretend to shew how they are Three in One but that they are Three in One. There is a vast difference between understanding how things are and that they are for a Man may understand there is such an Arts as Algebra by seeing Oughtred or Diophantus and yet understand nothing of the way of Reduction of Equation nor one tittle of the Rules of that Art But still the Authour will have this Doctrine a Mystery in his sense that is a falsity full of contradictions from the contrary determinations of Councils and the various expositions of others and by the wavering as he calls it of the Council of Sirmium which changed their Opinion and would have called in the Copies of one of their Creeds As to the contrary determinations of Councils that to the grief of the Christian Church is but too true if we may call the Arian Synods by that name for the Arian Heresy by God's Permission did so much prevail that by the Countenance of an Arian Emperour the World almost became Arian and then 't was an easy matter for the Bishops of that perswasion to form themselves into Assemblies and to declare what ever Orthodox Opinions they pleased for Heresy The Authour if he had said any thing to his purpose should have proved that the determinations of Orthodox Councils had been contrary one to another but what are the contradictions of the Hereticks to them Truth can be but one and the same though errour may be infinite and therefore the Conformity of the Orthodox Doctrines to one another shew their verity whilst the disagreement and clashing of the Heretical Creeds are an infallible proof of their falsity The Orthodox always very fairly stick to their old Test the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Hereticks are soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for neither Well but the Council of Sirmium has contradicted it self 'T is very true and 't is the misfortune or many Heretical Opiniators to do the same But by the way I am afraid the Arian Cause has but a very poor Patron of this Authour for when ever he has a mind to charge any slip or misdemeanour upon a Council he always singles out an Arian one for it He lately blamed the Arian Council at Seleucia for Tumult and now he charges one of the same stamp at Sirmium for Contradictions Now the matter at Sirmium stands thus The Arian Heresy about the year 357. had gotten large footing in the World and they began now to disdain the name of a Sect or Heresy and to affect the name of Catholicks and to this end would congregate in Councils not only to defend their own particular Tenets but also to condemn Heresies And upon this account 't was that they met at Sirmium in the foresaid year to condemn the Heresy of the Photinians who following Sabellius and Samosatenus would have Christ to have no being before the Conception of the Blessed Virgin This Heresy therefore they condemn and frame a Creed in opposition to it where are these words Those that shall say that the Son was from a no being before and from another substance and not from God or that there was a time when he was not those the holy and the Catholick Church doth esteem Aliens from her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Creed Socrates says was drawn up by Marcus Arethusius who was a notorious Arian Now these words 't is true were very pat against the Photinians and served to excellent good purpose for the condemnation of this Heresy But when they came to renew their quarrel against the Orthodox they found too late that they had in a manner given up their cause for here at one dash they had confounded all that Arius had been contending with his Bishop Alexander about Christ's being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a no being and that there was a time when he was not which though it served to silence Photinianism yet it totally would ruin the Cause of the Arians Therefore they set themselves to work anew to frame another Creed that might be more Arian which they publish in Latin in which every thing relating to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is left out and in which they declare they are ignorant what our Saviour
he does one thing with as great ease as another because the greatest thing he does is as far from setting his Omnipotent Power as the smallest his Power to act is infinitely greater than any Power to resist and though one thing may seem more difficult than another to us because we find their resistibility to be so much greater or less than our limited Power of acting yet God's Power is infinitely greater than the most difficult of them and therefore can do one as easily as the other It seems to us indeed that have a finite narrow understanding that can attend to and discern only a few things that are just before us very difficult to find out so many scatter'd Atoms that lie it may be in so many Millions of different places because we cannot discern different things lying in different places and therefore all such disorder confounds our understandings but God who is Omniscient and knows exactly all things every where nothing can lie disorderly to him he knows where every such Atom lies as well as when it possessed its place in the Organized Body and can with as great ease make them return to their former station as to make the new separated Soul go back to the Body that lies yet entire Nay 't is not so great an act of God's Power to range all this scattered matter together as to create another Body for the Soul to be united to for 't is possible that all this matter might be gathered together from never so many different places by a finite Power only and 't is not improbable to think God may do this by the Ministry of his holy Angels but 't is God alone that can create another Body and therefore this would be rather in our Authour's phrase to make God unaccountably exercise his Omnipotency because it would put God to the expence of a new Creation to make a Body to be united to the Soul when the old one would do as well His fourth Argument is against those that make it some advancement of the joys at the Resurrection that we shall be united to our old Bodies which will be like the joyful meeting and embracing of old Friends which he says will not be of old Friends but of old Enemies because of the War between the Flesh and the Spirit Rom. 7. and therefore the Soul cannot rejoice at her being united to her former Body 'T is true indeed that several Ancient and Modern Writers have made use of this as a Rhetorical Argument to set forth in some part the joy of that happy day and truly I think not without some reason For we find the Soul has a great love to the Body both by reason of its being so loth to part with it and because it is found to hanker after the Body after its separation which is the account which some give of Spectrums But besides we find in Men a secret love and esteem for every thing that has any relation to themselves they love their Relations as being born of the same stock they have an esteem for every thing belonging to their native Country they have an extraordinary kindness for their nutriculi Lares the House in which they were born and bred and this Love seems always greater after a considerable time of absence from them Now when a Mans Body is the most nighly related to him as being an essential part of himself he cannot but be more joyed to be united again to that which is so near to him than to see his native Country or the House he was born in after a long time of absence from him As for the enmity between the Flesh and the Spirit he mentions that is only an Enmity Metaphorically so called because all proper Enmity is between two rational beings which are endowed with free wills which the Soul and the Body are not nay that reluctancy of the sensual nature to the dictates of the understanding which is Metaphorically expressed by War or Enmity between the Flesh and Spirit that is very well appeased in the regenerate Man so that he has no reason to hate his Body for that especially now he has master'd it for these inward strugglings of the Flesh have made his Vertue greater to overcome them and therefore he may reasonably expect for this a greater Reward in proportion to his Vertue ENQUIRY II. What Changes or Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith OUR Authour has been hitherto giving us a Hodge-podge of Arianism and Socinianism and some Heresie of his own which wants a Name and this he calls giving us an account What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to Salvation which was the first Enquiry And now when he enters upon his second What Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith one would expect that according to the Tenour of his Book he should give an account how the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the World what Platonick Notions gave rise to the Opinion of our Saviour's Divinity that Plato's Doctrine of the Logos came from the Greeks to the Hellenistical Jews and so from them to the Christians one would I say have expected something of this matter which is used to fill up the Books of the late Socinians and Atheists when they have a mind to blaspheme the ever Blessed Trinity But our Authour I find either wants Courage or Reading or something else to set upon this Enterprize and therefore contents himself only with a little nibbling at this Doctrine but turns the whole Current of his Argument against the Papists and their Innovations Indeed his Charge of Innovations seems to lie against the Orthodox in general but when he comes to make good his Challenge he shams us off with an Instance or two against the Popish Errours But let us consider what these Innovations are he so boldly charges us with 1. He says We extend the Empire of Faith as far as possible and this he proves very strenuously by that vast Army of new Doctrines of Faith which the School-men have got by the Bishop of Rome's setting up for an Oracle to declare that Matter of Faith which was before Matter of Curiosity by implicit Faith in the Church c. But what does all this stuff signifie to us of the Church of England or who else does he mean by this We If he means We Papists and so reckons himself one of that number his Brethren will give him little thanks for thus exclaiming against their Corruptions If he means We Protestants or Church of England here is not one Tittle of Proof of the Charge against us we abhorr all these Romish Corruptions as much as the Authour possibly can do We extend Faith no farther than the Holy Scripture does what that tells us we ought to believe that we readily do believe but do not take into our Belief anything but what the Scripture does expresly assert or but what may by manifest
each other not by any particular modality but by a true and real subsistence But when the Doctor makes the Son to be only Reason he can only make him an accident or at best but a Modality of the Father For if he only be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what answers to it the internal Conception of the Father's Mind he would be only an Accident or Attribute or Mode or what else you 'll please to call it but would be far enough from that which the Church has all along called a Person And therefore the learned Fathers in the Church have been always careful to distinguish between this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the prolative or enunciative word and the essential and substantial one For the Son is not therefore called the word because he is the Reason of the Divine Mind or the Father but because he is generated of the Father without Passion For they explained this Generation by the production of a thought or word which was not produced by division or separation of parts which implies Passion but in a certain manner incommunicable to all Corporeal Beings So when the Doctor makes the Holy Ghost to be only the Power or Energy or Action of God what is this more than what the Socinians contend for and the Samosetanians and Followers of Simon Magus were Condemned for Nazianzen says that the Simonians thought the Holy Spirit was only an Energy and Leontius tells us that Paulus Samosetanus held the like Besides if the Holy Ghost be only an action with what propriety of speech can he be said to act or do With what tolerable sense can an action be said to speak and the Spirit said unto Peter Act. 10. 20. The Holy Ghost said uno them at Antioch Act. 13. How can an action or energy be said to search all things to make intercession for us to divide to every man severally as he will to reprove the World to guide us into all truth 'T is the nature of an Action to be acted but it can in no propriety be said it self to act But the Doctor says this Doctrine is stated by the Fathers as he has done it I hope by his Fathers he does not mean such as the Ministers of Alba Julia call so the famous Fathers Berillus Samosetanus Photinus c. and indeed some of these we have shewn to have explained the Trinity something at this rate but none of the Orthodox ones that I know of say any thing like it But he says St. Austin the Oracle of the Schoolmen states it thus whom Dr. Sherlock follows in his Book of the Trinity I know St. Austin in his Books de Trinitate if he means those has a great many strange Platonick Notions which I confess I do not understand and which perhaps St. Austin himself had no clear conceptions of when he wrote them but however there is enough in those Books to shew that St. Austin never designed such a nominal distinction in the Trinity as this Authour does What Dr. Sherlock says on this matter I have not time now to consult though when I read his Book I don't remember he gave any Countenance to this Opinion nay on the contrary some have been displeased with that Learned Doctor for making too great a distinction between the Persons of the Trinity not for making them three Names or Modus's as our Doctor does but for making them three distinct Minds or Spirits which are one by mutual Consciousness But what though these great Men should speak more nicely than ordinary of these Mysteries though they should wade deeper into them than other men The great Genius's of these admirable Persons and the strength of their natural reason will help to bear them out but I would advise our Authour to a little more cautiousness he poor Gentleman may be out of his depth before he is aware and therefore I am sure 't is his best way to keep within the ordinary Compass FINIS A Short HISTORY OF SOCINIANISM THE Heretical Persuasion of our Blessed Saviour's being only mere Man and the consequent Doctrines which ensue thereupon have of late Years been called Socinianism from the two Socinus's the most famous Inventors and Propagators of this Doctrine in the last Age for though the Heresie it self as to some parts of it was much older yet it had been altogether unknown for many Ages till by the Books of Servet the Socinus's and some other Hereticks in the last Age it was revived The first that set up this damnable Doctrine was the Heretick Cerinthus who lived in the Apostlick times and was Contemporary with St. John the Evangelist He asserted That Jesus was mere Man as others were and that he did not excell the rest in Justice or Wisdom or Prudence The Confutation of this Heresie was a special motive to St. John to write his Gospel or at least to be more express than the rest of the Evangelists in asserting our Lord's Divinity Ebion the Scholar of Cerinthus followed after his Master in this Heresie and propagated his Doctrines in Asia Cyprus Rome and elsewhere he asserted That Christ was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only common and mere Man This Heresie in the Second Age was propagated by one Theodotus Scytes or the Currier who taught likewise That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere Man and was excommunicated by Victor Bishop of Rome for this Blasphemy Artemon followed Theodotus who said That Christ was mere Man only more excellent in Vertue or Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the Prophets Against this Artemon there was a famous Book wrote which Eusebius mentions in which it was proved That the Ancient Christians did not believe his Doctrine as he pretended and in which the Authorities of Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatian Clemens are brought to confute him Sixty years after his Death in the Third Age about the Year 270 Paulus Samosetanus disseminated this Doctrine and asserted That Christ had only the common Nature of Man He was condemned in the Council at Antioch 272. Much about this time or somewhat before Sabellius broached his Heresie not much unlike the rest of these he held That there was but One Person in the Deity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Three Names which does in effect as St. Basil says upon this account deny Christ's Divinity Arius who followed after and made such a noise in the World with his Heresie whatever his thoughts might be yet he did not expressly assert Christ to be mere Man but only to be a Creature produced in time yet one that had a Being long before his conception in the Womb of the Virgin and therefore he cannot so properly come into the List of these Hereticks But soon after the Nicene Determinations against Arius Photinus one of the