mention also that the Devil who long time universally tyrannized is yet never said to be poured out upon all Flesh But now the aforesaid Attributes given to the Prince of Devils manifestly set forth his Supremacy in the Kingdom of Darkness and therefore in the Kingdom of God the like Phrases of the Holy Spirit of God must denote his Supremacy therein and by consequence his Deity since God alone is the one Supreme King of that Kingdom and thus our Faith is established firmly against the Macedonians also § 32. Now of what hath been said thus much I believe would be granted by all the Anti-personists that there is in God the Father an essential Reason and Spirit of Sanctity though not personally subsistent For a Person being with them a complete suppositum rationale and intellectual Subject or Being separate and standing single from all others they hold it a contradiction to hold three Persons in one individual Deity § 33. To this I hope to give so just and candid an answer as may embolden his Lordship to joyn in the Litany heartier and to speak clearer next time in his Theological Essays The name Person or whatsoever answers thereto in the learned Languages first of all signifies a Man's Face natural and artificial and thence the whole single Man hence after were the Gods in profane and intellectual Spirits in sacred Writings represented personally and so now the Term Person agrees to all single intelligent Beings by common and inartificial use But we that have no natural Idea of the Modes of Subsistence peculiar to Father Son and Holy Spirit without Divine Revelation cannot without it conceive the form of their Personality So for this we must rest wholly on Divine Revelation And accordingly I would describe a Person for a Theological Term thus whatsoever hath Personal Titles and Characters properly attributed to it by God's Word the same is a Person though we cannot frame an Idea of the form of its Personality And then I can add but the Divine Mind Reason and Holy Spirit have three properly distinguishing Personal Characteristick Titles Father Son and Paraclete to be owned in our avowed Faith and Baptism therefore these three are three distinct Persons though we cannot form a natural Idea of the Mode of their Personality * Aug. de Tempor Ser 189 Ego Personas in Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto non dico quasi personas hominum Personam Patris dico quod Pater est Filii quod Filius est Spiritus Sancti quod Spiritus Sanctus est dividuntur enim proprietatibus sed naturâ sociantur and though yet we are sure they are not separate and disjoyned like three Humane Persons In this mystery therefore the sense of this term is not vulgar nor of common Notion but peculiarly and necessarily Technical For since God hath revealed that in the Unity of his Nature there is one first Principle with two other co-eternally emanant or descendent from him and subsisting individually in him by which he created and governs all things and this under the Personal and Distinctive Characters of Father Son and Holy Spirit the Paraclete and many other Personal Attributes distinctive of their proper Subsistences in the Essential Unity of the Godhead the Term Person fell unavoidably into Canonical use though under a strict care against the vulgar notion of Humane or such like separate Persons and restrained only to the revealed Theories of the Mystery And under this regular limitation I challenge the Art of the World to sind out any one Characteristick Term so fit proper and congruous to denote their formal Personalities ascribed to them in the Scripture as this of Person in which the whole Catholick Church of old unanimously agreed antecedently to any Conciliar Definitions and is therefore of greater Antiquity and Authority than the Greek Hypostasis which though well founded in * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 3. yet was a while of ambiguous use and interpretation till it was by the help of Athanasius and others canonically adjusted and fixed according to the sense of our Term Person And yet supposing a sensible defect in these Terms Person and Subsistence what modest Man would upbraid the whole Church of God for such an insuperable impotency in Humane Nature which all wise Men perceive and own in their speaking of God after its utmost endeavours cares and consultations upon cogent necessities to fix the terms of our Faith and Doctrine in the best manner possible while yet the Revilers can produce nothing better or equal 'T is certainly an intollerable indecency against the Gravity Duty Care and Right ' of Men that are in Authority of proscribing Doctrines in any Profession what soever for to such certainly it belongs to fit Terms of Art to their Theories as reason shall require as well as they can without the merit or hazard of malevolence and detraction § 34. But because I would fill the thirsty and candid Soul with a satisfying Theory herein I will dig deeper into the grounds of these Personal Characters in the Scriptures and the Traditional Term of Person thence Canonically used First then Personality is a Character only of what is substantial and intellectual as are the Father Son and Holy Spirit the Paraclete who therefore have a good ground of bearing those Personal Titles But tho' these peculiar Titles have this common Basis yet have they their peculiar and formal reasons of Distinction The first Principle of all being called Father from his Eternal generation of the Logos which is called Son from being so eternally generated of the Father's Substance without division or partition thereof And * Con. Arian Orat. 2. here the Father being ever Father never Son and the Logos ever Son never Father St. Athanasius justly as well as sagaciously appropriates these Titles to these Persons in a primary Right and peculiar Excellency above all others since earthly Persons change their Character being one while Sons other while Fathers and Sons other while Fathers only and other while neither The Personal Distinctives of the Holy Spirit are taken from his connatural Operations and Offices which are Personal and the Titles therefore apposite Now that the essential Reason and Spirit of God the Father should each be as equally Personal as the Socinians themselves confess the Father to be will hence appear rational for that they are consubstantial with him and as substantially Divine as that Eternal Mind from and in which they are and live without any inequality in their Nature Perfection or essential Dignity And therefore if one be distinctly Personal so must the others also And therefore the Pronoun He first belonging to God original i. e. the Father as the first Person is properly also communicable to the other Persons each of them deriving their Deity and Personal subsistence from him with peculiar reasons of their proper Personal Characters and Distinctions And hence it was necessary to a just
if he had said there have been thirty Opinions in this Matter But tho' this be inartificial enough if no more yet that which is more grievously suspicious is that he calls the Catholick Faith but a meer Opinion and Perswasion of a Party * P. 31. The third Opinion saith his Lordship is that the Godhead by the Eternal Word the Second in the blessed Three dwelt in and was so inwardly united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ that by Virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person as our Soul and Body make one Man And that the Eternal Word was truly God and as such is worshipped and adored as the proper Object of Divine Adoration By those of this Perswasion the Term Person became applied to the Three which the Scripture only calls by the Name of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost on design to discover those who thought that these Three were only different Names of the same Thing But by Person is not meant such a Being as we commonly understand by that Word a complete intelligent Being but only that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other two So again †P. 32 33. This in general is the Sump of the received Doctrine That as there is but One God so in that undivided Essence there are Three that are really different from one another and are more than three Names or three outward Oeconomies * P. 42. or Modes and that the Second of these was in a most intimate and unconceivable manner united to a perfect Man so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of Christ § 3. And now perhaps some may wonder what Exceptions lie against this but there are indeed several and those of great Importance First That he calls it an Opinion only like that of the Socinian and Arian while yet he intimates it to be the Doctrine of the Church The truth is as his Lordship has stated it it has many meer Opinions in it but they are such as are not in the Faith and so ought not to have been represented as the Doctrine of the Church But if his Lordship had taken it for the Christian Faith either as it is or ought to have been stated by him he ought not to have set it out as a meer Opinion or Perswasion of a third Party For a meer partial Opinion cannot be a Divine or Catholick Faith whether we take Opinion for the Act or Object of Opinion For the Act is meer Humane Conjecture without certain grounds and objectively Opinions are Propositions that have no certain but only probable appearance which therefore no Man is bound in Conscience to assert or stand by for want of certain Evidence and Authority But Catholick Faith objectively taken consists of certain Principles made certainly evident by Divine Revelation to the Holy Catholick Church and thereupon to be relied on and asserted against all temptations in hopes of Life Eternal Now these Principles thus received were the Faith of the Universal Church not the Opinion of any Party in the beginning and therefore the contrary Parties and Opinions arising since of what Cut or Size soever pertain not to this Holy Body in which the Faith of the Trinity truly stated is as essential as the Faith of the Unity and as fundamental in the Christian Professions Now would it not be very Theological to say That all the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles the whole Synagogue of the Jews and Church of Christ were ever of this Opinion That there is one God only the Creator and Governour of all things That the Apostles and all Christians are of Opinion that Jesus is the Christ That it is our Opinion That he came down and dwelt among us died rose again and ascended into Heaven and shall come to Judgment at the general Resurrection Just so absurd it is to call the Catholick Faith of God's Church the Opinion or Perswasion of a Party 'T is true indeed his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine but this term is equivocal and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers But what I require is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular Men's private Opinions but originally committed to the Charge and Custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive Body Whereas his Lordship only lays down this Notion or form of Faith †P. 26. See Discour 3. That we believe points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed to us in Scripture which is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private fancies and contradictory Opinions since each Man's Faith is his Perswasion that what he believes for a Doctrine is revealed in Scripture Whereas the Act of a Christian Faith believes such Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from the certain Evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual Perswasions but by a primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition The deviation from which Rule and Notion to private Opinions and Perswasions is the cause of all Heresies and by its consequent Divisions naturally tends to the ruine of the true Christian and Catholick Faith I will not however at present descend into that thicket of Controversie What Rules private Persons are bound to in the learning and professing the Christian Faith but whosoever will arrive to a maturity of Judgment and Knowledge herein must betake him †P. 63. to the exploded Rule of Vincentius Eirineâ—â— and take that for fundamental Doctrine which hath been received for such in all Ages Places and Churches A Rule very practicable and easie since there are sufficient Memorials of the Primitive Antiquity delivering unto us their Creeds and Summaries of the then Catholick Faith which from them has uniformly descended to all Churches of the later Ages 'T is true indeed every single Man can believe no otherwise than he is privately perswaded but he that is not to be perswaded to receive the common and established Systems of the Faith of the Church Catholick upon the Authority on which it hath ever stood and yet stands or shall wantonly coin out other Articles for fundamental upon his own private Opinion belongs not to the Communion of the Church of Christ though he fansies his conceptions revealed in the Scriptures § 4. Secondly His Lordship is not clear in the point of Incarnation for he tells us that this third Opinion is that by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person Now here first we are not taught whether there were three or any one Person in the
of Faith must be taught every Proselyte before Baptism let us see what efficacy his Lordship's formula will have when put into a Catechism Catechumen My Lord I am an Heathen Philosopher and willing to be instructed in the Principles of the Christian Faith I pray what are they Bish First our received Doctrine is That in the single Essence of God there are Three Catech. Three what my Lord Bish Three really distinct from one another more than three Names Modes or Oeconomies Catech. My Lord you tell me what they are not but I would fain know or have some notion what they are And when you tell me there are Three the Rules of Logick Grammar and Catechism require a Substantive to determine the Sense I pray my Lord has your Catholick Church or your Church of England given them no Characteristick Name Bish Yes after Patripassianism arose she called them Persons as a Test to discover them Catech. But why then had you not thus stated the sum of your received Doctrine that in God's Unity of Essence there are Three Persons for if this were received before or since Patripassianism 't is received into your Christian Confessions Perhaps the Catholick Church may not really mean that they really are what she calls them that is Persons and hence your Lordship thought fit to omit it I pray my Lord deal openly with me is it so or how is it Bish Truly Sir the Church only means that one is not the other that is all that is intended in the Term Person Catech. This looks very Catachrestical and Inartificial but do not your Scriptures teach them to be Persons Bish No they only call them by the Names of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost Catech. But do not your Scriptures and your Churches teach that the first of these is really a Father and the second really his Son Bish This is one of the three Opinions that the Scriptures do so teach Catech. And is this the Opinion your Lordship will explain to me Bish Yes Sir Catech. Are Father and Son then Personal Titles Bish Yes Sir among Men. Catech. But are they not so in the Deity Bish Sir they are not called Persons in Scripture but only Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost but we mean no more by Persons but that one is not the other there are three Sir that you may depend on but I pray Sir do not press me against liberty of Conscience to call them Persons for I cannot tell what they are nor what to call them Catech. But I pray my Lord why did your Apostle blame the Athenian Inscription to the unknown God and promised to declare him unto them if he taught no more notions of him than that there are Three I know-not-whats in the God-head I am in hope I shall find better information from your Fathers I pray my Lord what is your Opinion of them herein Bish Perhaps Sir they have gone beyond due bounds contradicted each other and themselves they use many impertinent Simile's run out into much length and confusion while they talk of things to others which they understand not themselves Catech. My Lord if you can teach me nothing of your Faith in God if you will reject the terms of your Church to which you have sworn your unfeigned assent if you dissolve the Sense of your Scripture Terms into nothing and renounce the Wisdom of your Primitive Fathers you force me to retreat from my hopes and to devote my Soul to the Society of the Philosophers This must be the Issue of such a dry sensless insipid State of the Faith if offered to the Wise of the Heathen Whereas the true Theory of the Faith is a most noble and seraphick Theology accounting for Creation and Providence and all other Mysteries of Nature and Grace in so clear and heavenly a Light that all the Idolatrous Notions and Fables of the Heathens and all the celebrated Wisdom of the Philosophers like Dagon fell before it § 10. Come we next to his Lordship's account of the Incarnation †P. 32 33. The second of this Blessed Three was united to a perfect Man so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of the Messias who was both God and Man Now here it is to be noted that this Exposition of our Faith is his Lordship 's own after his Censure of the Primitive Doctrines herein so that we must take this as most correct and exact He then that hitherto omitted in his own accounts the Term Person in his Doctrine of the Trinity admits it here concerning the Messias and consequently leaves us to conclude that he judges it improper to be applied to the Trinity but proper to the Messias or God Incarnate And secondly it is notorious that he denies the Personality of Christ to be Eternal since he asserts it to result from the Union of two Natures 'T is true indeed the Royal or Sacred Character of Christ is Personal that is it must suppose Personality in the Subject so entitled and it is certain also that it was the Title of an Office of a Person to be incarnate but this does not inferr that the Personality of the Messias commenced or resulted from his Incarnation For an Eternal Person assumed our Nature so to become our threefold Messias So that though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality for to this the Humane Nature was assumed or pre-existent but added or contributed nothing thereunto Wherefore upon this news of a resulting Personality I ask whether the Son of God was a Person antecedently to his Incarnation or no If not this is down-right Sabellianism if he was then that antecedent Personality did not result from the Incarnation but if you add another from the assumption of the Humanity then this is Nestorianism if you confound them into a compound it is I think Eutychianism since the two Personalities cannot be confounded without confusion of Natures and Substances But if in the Conjunction of Natures one Personality excludes or destroys the other nothing can result from that which is destroyed but that Personality simply remains as it was before that destroyed the other And further the Personality that destroys must be superior to the destroyed and if so it 's ten to one but the Divine and Eternal Personality of the Word is superior to that of the Humane Nature and so destroys it in the Union and consequently there results no Personality from the Humane Nature but the Eternal Personality of the Word only remains simply as it ever was and thus at last truth will come upon us whether we will or no for I do not suppose his Lordship will be so hardy as to teach that a created Personality will destroy an uncreated by the conjunction of a created Nature with the Divine Yet after all I believe his Lordship fixes the Personality not in the whole Theanthrôpus
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Principium commonly denote And I call them so only in respect of the creatures not absolutely in respect of their own subsistence as if they were three unprincipiated Principles for so there is but one viz. God the Father So I agree with the Doctrine of the Fathers as they deny three Principles nonprinoipiate for otherwise three such Principles would be three Gods Principles and so are not really distinct from them or simply describe the whole Divine Essence and so no single one of these Principles or else are merely negative and so signifie no positive Principle or Hypostasis in the Deity or else are extrinsecal and relative only to exteriour productions and so touch nothing Eternal or Inessential to the Divine Nature that I mention not how that Eternal Generation and Procession can be conceived of no Attributes distinct from the Trinity the Father Logos and Holy Spirit There is therefore in the Deity no positive distinct intelligible Power Virtue or Principle but Father Son and Holy Spirit Mind Reason and the Holy Spirit of Love by the Revelation of whose Nature Subsistence Personality Counsels and Operations the Christian Theology and Religion is most pure desecate sublime full and absolute as became the last revelations by the Son of God but had not been so had it wanted any of these received Articles and Theories concerning the adorable and ever blessed Trinity § 38. But whereas there are who professing the Catholick Faith themselves would yet open the Church Doors to contrary Opinions by making the Gospel Fathers and Religious Councils naked unto shame and contriving to abrogate the Sanctions of our Faith I pathetically beg them to consider deeply what I have said hereupon especially in the four last Sections and further remark that since by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and the Mediation of the Son we have an access unto union with God the Father the first Parent and Principle of all that dwells in Light otherwise altogether inaccessible it was necessary that our Rule of Faith if justly perfect should shew us the way of this ascent and particularly what that Logos and Holy Spirit properly and essentially are by whom we arise into this Communion with the Father Else such a defect had remained in these necessary Notices as had rendred our Faith and Theology blind and uncertain to the inevitable danger of a fundamental Impiety For Men hearing of the Son and Holy Spirit must have been curious for a Notion of them and must have taken them for create or uncreate Now if being uncreate Men had taken them for created as we see many will against express Revelation and universal Tradition to the contrary Men would have prosaned them and their Deity the sault whereof had been imputable to God had he not yielded us the necessary Revelation of their Order and Godhead And so likewise had they been created God would not have left us without sufficient notice thereof lest we mistaking should have adored them for Divine as the whole Church hath done and does But certainly he could not so much so fully so often so perpetually have asserted their Godhead and Personality had they been merely created or impersonal To have revealed nothing of them had been to have shewed no way to Communion and Knowledgge of God the Father and to have said somewhat of them but not enough to fix a Faith and Notion of their Essence and Character had been a Snare But since what is now taught is both necessary and perfect I think it a damnable Sin not to keep such a Divine Depositum perfect whole and undefiled as it was delivered unto us but by false indulgences of Latitude to betray it up to profanation corruption contempt and infidelity § 39. And here having made a sufficient Apology for those Theories of the Fathers against his Lordship's charge of Novelty and Humane Fancy I could heartily have begg'd a Nunc Dimittis and have ended in these pleasing Contemplations But our Life is a Warfare and his Lordship 's further process requires my further attendance But many saith his Lordship have thought that the Term Son did not at all belong to the * He means to any one of them blessed Three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias that as he was to be the King of Israel so he was to be the Son of God We find Nathanael addressed himself thus to him and when the High Priest adjured our Saviour he knits these two together art thou the Christ the Son of the most High God Which shews that they did esteem those two as one and the same thing This account of the Jews notion his Lordship seems to have taken out of Dr. Hammond's Annotation on Psal 2. v. 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee For these are that great and good Doctor 's words the learned Jews themselves resolved that he was to be the Son of God and that in an eminent manner So the High Priest Matth. 26.63 Tell us whether thou art the Christ the Son of God and Joh. 1.49 Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel c. Which Text therefore the Doctor prophetically interprets of his resurrection and exaltation according to good New Testament Authorities But he that said this never taught his Lordship that the term Son did not at all belong to any of the blessed Three but expresly in the same Annotation proves from Rom. 1.4 that he was declared to be the Eternal Son of God the second of the blessed three by his Resurrection from the dead And it is not fair play in his Lordship to cite a place and conceal the Author that so God's truth and his doubling might not be discerned But since we are upon a critical disquisition of these terms Messias and Son of God we will consider first what the real truth is and secondly the opinion of the Jews First then it is certain that God's constitution of any Person in a State of favour gives the favourite the Title of a Son by virtue thereof Thus God calls the People of Israel his Son and his First Born Exod. 4. 22. and so literally Hosea 11.1 and many other places set God as their Father because God had admitted them as the seed of Abraham into his especial Covenant as we are also Sons of God by the adoption of the New Covenant And hence exaltation by God to an high Authority has founded a title of Gods and Sons of God unto Men and Angels And consequently the various signal Exaltations of Christ in his Humane Nature above all others make him in those respects justly to be styled the Son of God If then he had been only exalted into the heavenly Throne without any antecedent Death or Resurrection this alone would have founded a Filial Title much more when in Order thereto he was born again our of a
Virgin Sepulcher whereby he became the first Born or first Begotten from the Dead So his Transfiguration on Mount Tabor and his Unction by the Holy Ghost at his Baptism in both which the Bath-Col the voice from Heaven pronounced him God's beloved Son were fair grounds for the same Character His Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin 's Womb was a foundation thereof * Luk. 1.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shed's that this was not the first ground of his Filiation before all these though not the primary By the †Heb. 1.2 Son God made the Worlds and thereby the Son became Heir of all things And hereupon it was by many Ancients preached as Good Theology that herein also he was the Son of God and the * Col. 1.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Born and Heir of the whole Creation they setting it off as a kind of Nativity and Production of the Logos into Light and the World And those many Texts of Scripture besides the Catholick Tradition of Creeds that teach him to be in the form of God and equal with God the true God God above all blessed for ever and that he hath received his being from the Father have established the Faith of an Eternal Paternity and Coeternal Filiation So that if we take the Humane Nature into the Conception and Character of the Christ as his Lordship does here are several grounds for the Character of Son before our Lord actually was a Man or could be on his Lordships Notions the Messias And so Son of God and Messias cannot really in the true intention of the Scriptures be altogether synonymous equaeval or equipollent though belonging to the same Person Now if Nathanael made a good and full Confession when he told our Lord * John 1.50 Thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel then he owned all the truth of the Filial Character but if his Faith were defective then it is no ground for his Lordship's Criticks to stay so low in it and not advance to the Highest revealed Excellency of the Character which I believe the true Israelite reached as well as †Matth. 16.16 Joh. 6.69 St. Peter and others since the Gospels set this for a good memorial of their and the Catholick Faith But however let us see what the Faith of the Jews contributes to our Edification By the Testimony of the Fathers from after Josephus's days it appears an established or received Doctrine among the Jews as also other Hereticks herein so judaizing that the Messias was to be a mere Man and so no wonder if all Rabbins since that own him to be the Son of God take him only for a positive or adoptive Son by mere advancement Now if his Lordship thinks this to have been their Faith also in our Lord's days then those some Criticks of his Lordship's cannot found the Filiation of the Theanthropus in this Jewish Faith But if these Jews did believe their expected Messias to be a real Immanuel according to their Prophet and this Immanuel to be the Son of God how can his Lordship's Criticks prove that in the Immanuel's Filiation * P. 32. in which the Humane Nature being the first Conception †the first Conception of the Sonship was in his Humanity For if there were another Conception of Sonship in the Divine Nature how can they or his Lordship prove it to be posterior to that in the Humanity To be Son of God is a Character at least of Dignity and if there be any thing in the Deity that bears it it cannot derive it from any Creature and so in order of Conception it ought not to be posterior to the Title in a Creature His Lordship had best have a eare lest he and his Critick's * Vid. Euseb con Marcell call in upon Marcellus in this rode of Conceptions and father the Heresie upon the Jews But if there be no real Son in the God head there will be no Father neither before the Creation and consequently the Humane Nature being originally filia◠being united to God who by the Creation thereof only is its Father i. e. natural Parent will convey the Title of Son to its own Father by this Union which since it can be only a nominal dispensation here comes in a beloved Sabellianism But if there be a Sonship in the Godhead since it cannot be derivative it must be Primitive to the Character given to the united Humanity because of that Union and if so how can its Conception be first lodged in the Humanity to which it is socially communicated in the entire Suppositum of the Theanthropus but not singly distributed by any dividing Conception except we will put up with Nestorius But to look a little further into this matter I think it manifest that the Jews believed the Son of God to be a Person not Humane but equal to the Father and so had no first Conceptions of it in Humane Nature The Personal Title of Son with others that Philo gives the Logos which he did not believe to have been incarnate is a full proof of this first point that he was called Son by the Jews without any respects to Humanity since he taught this as the Theology of Moses and the Tradition of the Elders and that this Filial Logos was by them believed equal to God the Father * Joh. ch 5.17 c. vid. ch 10. St. John proves for that the Jews would have killed Jesus for saying that God was his Father making himself thereby equal with God and so God which our Saviour refuses not but defends And even Josephus after the Destruction of Jerusalem owning our Jesus to be Christ doubts whether it were lawful to call him a Man because the old Notion that God was and was to be the King of Israel was not yet worn out They looked on the Kingdom of the Messias as the Kingdom of God and they looked for the Son of God whom Agur of old knew under that Character to come and set up his Reign among them and to subdue all Nations thereunto And therefore St. John shews him and the Devils confess him the Son of God also as well as his Disciples nay the Conturion at his Crucifixion owned him to be the Son of God who never saw him to have been nor ever hoped to see him hereafter to be the King of the Jews according to their Notions of his Royalty For though they looked on their King to come to be God the Son of the Father yet they took his Kingdom to be secular And he that considers that in the Gospels the terms of Father Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of to and by the Jews familiarly without any of our Lord's correction of the Jewish Notion or Institution of any other either in common among the multitudes or privately among his Disciples must resolve
God-head before the Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first †P. 32. in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature Yea this Description will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Union thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an incarnate Person or otherwise by this State of his Lordships Doctrine the Father Son and Holy Ghost may be conceived as one incarnate Person Whereas his Lordship well knows our Faith to be clear That the Eternal Word is personally distinct or a distinct Person from the Father and alone assumed the Humanity into a Personal Union with himself and so alone was the Person of Christ exceptively of the Father and the Holy Ghost from this Personality and Character § 5. Now if a Man would enquire into the Motives of this affected obscurity in his Lordship that leaves open a gap to so many Heresies his Lordship's Words would lead one to a conclusion or at least a fair jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature For he teacheth us that those whom the Church calleth Persons the Scripture only calls by the Names of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost Where that artificial Word only derogates from the propriety and fitness of the term Person as if the Scripture terms did not come up to it nor justifie it And if his Lordship will stand by the †P. 45. plain intention of his Words elsewhere he places Christ's Personality only in his Manhood in these words That Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Word So that the Word must be different from the Person in whom it dwelt which must be the Heresie of Sabellius Maâ—… or Nestorius In short while he 〈◊〉 the Canonical term of Person to contain some notion in it not imported in the Scripture terms he seems for that cause to censure it for that the Scripture does not come up so far as to teach three Persons but only Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost But when he says this third Opinion is than by the Incarnation God and Man truly became one Person I would fain know whether the term Person be proper for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no If not the Doctrine is to be blamed that teaches him to be truly one Person since the truth of a Character is the greatest propriety and if it be not true the Doctrine that teaches it is to be cashiered But if to avoid this it be true then I would fain be instructed whether the Church does not use the term Person in the same formal intention concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit when She calls them three Persons as She does when She calls Christ or the Son of God incarnate a Person For if She uses the term in the same formal intention then if the Christ be a proper Person so are the Father and Holy Spirit two other Persons properly and truly distinct in the sense of the Church but if the Church has one intention in the Term when applied to Christ 〈◊〉 God-man and another when applied to the Eternal Trinity let this be made out by just Authority and I have done § 6. But the Order of his Lordship's Discourse obliges me to break off a little from this Disquisition till the next Section where we must resume it For he tells us if we will believe him that the term Person by those of our Perswasion came to be applied to the three to discover those who thought that these three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now wherein lay their Heresie Why in this That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not three co-essential Persons really distinct which was the Catholick Faith instead of which they coined this pretence That those Names had not three distinct subjects of which they were predicates or denominations but only were three titles of God the Father who became incarnate and suffered for us Now hence it appears that their Heresie consisted in the denial of what was ever before received in the Church That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were three Persons And if so then is his Lordship's insinuation false and injurious that the term Person had its rise and occasion from Patripassianism and consequently is of a later Date that by this fraudulent Hypochronism the term and the sense of it may be taken for not Primitive and Traditional but a mere later and artificial invention Now to prove what I say to be true I am to produce authentick Testimonies Now in the Latin World the first I ever have read of that taught Patripassianism was Praxeas against whose Heresie herein Tertullian wrote and charged in for denying the Eternal Word to be a * Tert. ad Praxeam Non vis enim eum substantiâ—um habere in re per substantiae proprietatem ut res persona quaedam videri possit substantial and real Person which Tertullian though then a Montanist then asserted with the Church though his †Tert. ibid. Itaque Sophiam quoque exaudi ut secundam Personam conditam Sic Filius in suâ personâ profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae Novatian de Trinit secundam Personam efficiens terms and senses were sometimes very singularly odd concerning the production of the second Person In the Eastern Church several lapsed into the like Error the most famous of which was Sabellius from whom the Heresie was entitled Sabellianism which denied what that Church also had ever asserted That the Father Son and Holy Spirit were three Persons instead whereof they asserted them to be but one Person For the truth hereof I shall recite the Words †Athan. con Sabell Greg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Athanasius as beyond all Exception valid From whence it appears that the Sabellians asserted but one Person against that Plurality of Persons fore-acknowledged in the Church And now I leave it to his Lordship to explain how the denial of three Persons could be Apostasie as this Father calls it had not the Faith of them been before expresly avowed and received For Heresie is an opposition of true received Faith and Apostasie must be from an antecedent Profession So that the Doctrine of a Personal Trinity was not later than Patripassianism but the Original Faith Nor does his Lordship seem candid in concealing this which was the substance of that Heresie while he mentions only their teaching three Names of one thing or Person which was a Conâ—ectary or at least a Colour added to
but only in the Humanity if one could see his inside since he * 45. That Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Word c. makes the Manhood it self a Person distinct from the Eternal Word that dwelt therein and instead of confuting †P. 32. helps those Criticks that place their first Conceptions of the Sonship in the Humanity and as to the Union he is so ambiguous that he tells us not whether the Father and the Holy Spirit came into this resulting Personality or no only saying without any peculiar restriction that God and Man became one Person thus leaving a latitude for various Heresies in this Mystery § 11. So much then for the Personality Advance we next to the Deity of the Messias * P. 40. We believe saith he that Christ was God by vertue of the Indwelling of the Eternal Word in him The Jews could make no Objection to this who knew that their Fathers had worshipped the Cloud of Glory because of God's resting upon it And this he lays as a foundation on which he may properly Deifie Christ's Humane Nature But this Jewish Doctrine is absolutely false and is but either an heedless or willfull Depravation of the Learned Dr. Whithy's chast and accurate * Tractat. de ver Jes Christ Deitat p. Theories herein To make which appear in its proper visage let us consider what Worship is in the sense of his Lordship with whom it imports †Lord of Sarum P. 38. not only Incurvation of Body which may be paid to Creatures but Acts of Faith and Trust Prayers and Praises c. Now will his Lordship stare me or any Man in the face and say that the Jews did thus Worship the Cloud of Glory This I think will be routed by one Syllogism whatsoever the Jews worshipped according to the Law was God The Cloud of Glory was not God Ergo the Jews did not Worship the Gloud of Glory I take it for granted that this Syllogism is impenetrable and let his Lordship try his skill upon it if he please It is indeed agrecable to truth and learned Men teach that Isreal worshipped God in the Cloud over the Ark in the Temple as in all the Symbols and Places of his especial Presence but the Symbols or Places themselves were not the Objects of the Jewish Adoration though Papists bend this to the Adoration of the Host And as simple as the Fathers are they can inform his Lordship †Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. ad ista Psalm 24. Quis est Rex Gloriae Dominus Exercitumm c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Man whatsoever will own that in Psalm 24. neither Solomon nor the Tabernacle or Ark of the Testimony was the King of Glory which they adored Yet that his Lordship's Concelts may have fair usage I am content to lay together all that he has said to this purpose to try whether they are in truth sound or adulterated or whether they can bear a fair Tryal He therefore teaches †P. 36. that 't is evident from several forms of expressing that Cloud of Glory that a constant and immediate visible Indwelling of the Jehovah was according to Scripture Phrase said to be Jehova which was applied to nothing else This the Greek render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Term the Apostles universally applying to our Saviour could mean no other but that he was the true Jehovah by a more perfect dwelling of the Deity in him c. Now here are two great Absurdities first that the visible Indwelling of the Jehovah is in Scripture phrase called Jehova and secondly that this Name was applied to nothing else For first 't is he that dwelt between the Cherubims in a symbol of Glory over the Ark first in the Tabernacle after in the Temple is called Jehovah not his very Habitation 'T is the Title of the Resident not the Residence and so his Lordship himself applies it also in contradiction either to himself or the Scripture if he expounds it rightly That which perhaps led his Lordship into this fancy is that Shechinah Grammatically signifies Habitation and is thence taken by the Rabbins in a sense peculiarly sacred for the Majestick Presence of God between the Cherubims c. and that he takes to be called Jehova But his Lordship was not at leisure to apprehend that the Rahbinick use has turned the Grammatical notation of Habitation that is but an accident and made it to import that substantial Light and Glory the Symbol of the Divine Presence the Scripture word Glory and the Rabbinick Term Shechinah being equivalent For the Rabbins by Shechinah mean not mere presence but that Lucid Glory by which God presentiated himself But if his Lordship will excuse this unacouracy and say That This Glory is called Jehova in the Scripture yet this is also false and will not serve his turn For this Shechinah is called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Glory of Jehovah and God is called †Psal 24. the King and * Act. 7.2 God of Glory with relation to the Shechinah yet no Man will change the terms Glory of Jehovah thus The Jehovah of Jehovah or the God or King of Glory into this form The God or King of Jehovah which yet might be done if Jehova were the name of that Glory When Moses asked Jehovah to see a greater and more Majestatick Glory of the Divine Presence and that Jehovah made his Glory to pass by Exod. 33.18 21 22. The Glory is plainly distinguished from the Jehovah For Moses would not pray thus O Jehovah shew me thy Jehovah nor would the Jehovah say my Jehovah shall pass by Jehovah therefore was not the mere Shechinah either God's Habitation or the Cloud of Glory but he that presentlated himself therein And hence the ritual Worship of Israel though performed toward that Cloud was yet performed not to it but to him whose Majesty so appeared in or by it Nor does this Symbol adequately come up to the Mystery of the personal Union for God's inhabiting in a Cloud of Glory did not make a personal Union between God and the Cloud as the in habitation of God in Christ Humane Nature being of an higher and more intimate and unitive Connexion did which yet however doth not really turn our Nature in Christ into Deity except we will go over to Eutychianism and a confusion of Substance nor do we adore his Humanity as so Deified but we Worship the Eternal Son of God united to and mediating for us in our Nature § 12. But whereas his Lordship has out-pitched all Mortals in saying That in Scripture Phrase Jehova never imports any thing else but a constant and visible immediate Inhabitation which has been sufficiently baffled in the precedent Section I will adventure to advance and say that in the Scripture the word Jehovah is used for God without any imaginable respect to such a Shechinah In the Book of Job it is
very often found yet there being no Shechinah in his Land of Vz the Author or Translator could not use the term Jehovah concerning God appearing in the Shechinah of the Children of Israel for Job was an Alien and of the Line of Esau In those infinite Places where the Creation and all other Divine Works without the Land of Canaan are attributed to Jehovah there the name has no respect to the Shechinah Wheresoever he is mentioned by this name in Affairs among the Ten Tribes after their separation by Jeroboam from the Worship at Jerusalem there is no respect to the Shechinah for he had no such among the Ten Tribes When Ezekiel in Captivity before the destruction of the Temple mentions the Oracles of Jehovah or God by this name in the Land of the Chaldeans he has no respect to a Shechinah When the Temple was destroyed there was never any Shechinah restored to that Temple any more yet the inspired Pen-men after this call him by the name Jehovah for which I referr his Lordship to the Bible or the Concordances And to conclude the Eternal Wisdom of the Father speaking by Solomon calls him Jehovah with respect to such a time as was before all possibility of a Shechinah Prov. 8.22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old And truly if Jehovah were the name of God only as in the Shechinah then as it did not belong to him before the Shechinah so it ceases to appertain to him since the extinction thereof in the dissolution of the first Temple except his Lordship will have it revive again by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Habitation of God in Christ's Humane Nature But then as often as it was used by the High Priest if not others under the second Temple and after the cessation of other Prophets till Christ came by his Lordship's Criticism it must be improper and the Prophets that called God Jehovah after the Destruction of the Temple did misname him But after all to keep up an old custom his Lordship adds another contradiction for he says * P. 38. Jehovah is a federal name of God Now if so then was it properly used of God all the while the Jews were in the Old Covenant with God which was till the Death of Christ surely and consequently all that tract of time in which there was no Shechinah from the ruin of the first Temple was this name most proper § 13. From the Jewish Shechinah come we to Christ of whom his Lordship thus teaches * P. 40. that Christ was God by vertue of the Indwelling of the Eternal Word in him †P. 35. that the Jehovah dwelt so immediately and bodily in Christ Jesus that by that Indwelling he was truly Jehovah * P. 37. that he was the true Jehovah by a more perfect Indwelling of the Deity in him than that had been which was in the Cloud Now this must be grounded upon a Principle or Maxim That whatsoever the Delty immediately inhabits as it did the Cloud and the Humanity of Christ that thing becomes God and the true Johovah by virtue of that Inhabitation and therefore the Cloud and the Humanity of Christ were the true Jehovah by this Residence and if so the Cloud and Christ are substantially the same thing though yet the Cloud hath ceased to be for many Ages And by the same Doctrine the inner Sanctuary of the Tabernacle and the Temple and much more the Temples of our Bodies and Souls in which Christ as God dwells immediately by his Holy Spirit are the true Jehovah also by virtue of this Inhabitation And besides all these absurdities his Lordship's terms exclusively diversifie the whole Christ who is inhabited from the Eternal Word which does inhabit in him and so according to his Lordship he becomes if not a Socinian yet a sactitious God one way or other § 14. Ay But does not the Apostle justifie his Lordship's form of speaking when he saith * Col. 2.9 that in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily which his Lordship †P. 40. cites for his Authority These are indeed the Apostle's Words and his Lordship cunningly referrs to them though never intended to his Lordship's Consequences and Imagnations For the Apostle seems to oppose the Gnostick Pleromata excluding Christ from the Supreme Pleroma and Divinity Now things are inexistent in others either as things contained in things containing or as parts in the whole or one part in another The first Mode cannot belong to the inexistence of the Deity in our nature the second or third form of inexistence may be conveniently asserted here For first the whole Christ being a Compositum of the Word and Manhood the God-head of the Word may be said to be in Christ as part in the whole But if you take Christ here Synecdochically for that part of him which is distinct from the God-head which is often done sometimes expresly as the Man Christ Jesus sometimes implicitly from the necessary sense of the Texts then this Text will be thus interpretable In Christ i.e. the Man Christ or his Manhood dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead as the superior in the inferior part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as the Soul in a Body But neither of these Senses inferr that all that in which the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily as a Soul in a Body is thereby really God and the true Jehovah for this would inferr an Eutychian confusion of Natures and Attributes To illustrute this his Lordship may observe that we say an excellent Soul is found in this Man either as part in the whole or strictly as the whole Man is put only for the Body yet no Man will hence inferr that all that in which the excellent Soul dwells thereby becomes a true Soul for this would confound the two Natures into one And truly as the formal Structure of his Lordship's words is heretical so his Arguments for it from the Jewish Shechinah are Idolatrous and will justifie Idolatry i.e. Creature-Worship both in Jews and Christians 'T is true indeed the Fathers generally teach a gracious adoptive and metaphorical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our nature in Christ and of all Saints by him but not so as to make that Nature or these Saints the true Jehovah notwithstanding their mutual coinhabitation to all Eternity § 15. It must be allowed and I allow it freely that the Argument brought from the perpetual rendring of Jehovah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the signal appropriation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament to our Lord while both Testaments establish only one and the same Lord is in it self exceeding good and urged generally by most learned Men to this purpose but however it is almost marred by his Lordship's conjuring up an Objection which he had not skill enough to lay The great Objection * P. 37. says he that ariseth
against this is that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed the common translation for Jehovah yet sometimes it is put for other Hebrew words both Elohim and Adonai and that in the New Testament it is used rather in opposition or more properly in subordination to the name of God which seems to be stated very plainly by St. Paul †1 Cor. 8.5 8. when he says there were many that were called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there were Gods many and Lords many In opposition to all which he asserts that to Christians there is but one God the Father of whom were all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus by whom were all things and we by him From hence it seems that the true Notion of this according to St. Paul is that as the Heathen Nations believed some supreme Deities and other deputed or lower Deities that watched over particular Nations so we Christians do own one only Eternal God the Creator and Conserver of all and one Lord to whom he has given the Government of all things So that this as it favours the Notion of one exalted to Divine Authority and Honour does take away quite the whole force of this Argument Now let us see how his Lordship solves this The sum of what at large he tells us is †P. 37 38. that he that is at large the God of the Universe was also the federal God and Lord of the Jews and his federal name was Jehova rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Heathens also were supposedly under the Dominion of some of their Supreme Deities So here St. Paul sets one God for us who is also our federal God Lord or Jehovah by his dwelling in the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ But certainly 't is hazardous to hang so weighty a point of Faith on so thin a Cob-web For what first of all if a Man should deny Jehovah to be a Name restrictively and relatively federal to one People how will his Lordship convince him It is for the most part put by it self seldom with any Genitive never that I have yet observed with a Genitive of that People And being put simply it is a name of pure and absolute Essence or Existence and altogether irrelative even to the whole World as properly belonging to his Eternal Being before all Worlds And yet it may consequently import a negative reflexion on the Non-existence of all other Heathen Gods It seems indeed †Exod. 15.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefixed to the relative and federal Name which was the God of their Fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob declared unto Moses * Ibid. v. 6.13 before the name Jehovah was given But it is plain that he was long before the federal God of their Fathers under the mystical name of Elohim Adonai and Elschaddai before ever Moses was But till the appearance in the Bush God was not known to the Fathers by the name * Exod. 6.3 Jehovah though he was their federal God of Old So that this name Jehovah when added is added as a name of Essence to the federal Titles of the God of their Fathers the God of Israel which were set so relatively to that People in opposition to those relative Titles and local Denominations which the Heathen gave their tutelar and respective Deities And this I take for a certain Rule that an Absolute name of God is set alone and a federal name always with a Genitive Case or Suffix Nay Moses expresly uses the name Jehovah without this federal relation in the Story of Balaam * Num 22.8.13 23.3 8 12 26. 24.6.13 23.17 24.11 whom with Balak also Moses makes to call God Jehovah And if it shall be pretended that they used this as the known federal Name for that Balaam said of Israel †Numb 23.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 22.18 Jehovah his God is with him it is to be observed that the same Mesopotamian Diviner calls him by the same Term * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah my God And the same Moses or whosoever gave us the Book of Job in Hebrew names the God of Job * Job Ch. 1. Ch. 2. Ch. 38. Ch. 40. Ch. 42. Jehovah and †Ch. 1. v. 21. brings in Job calling him by that name though neither Job nor probably the Original Author of that Book was of the Children of Israel nor within their especial Covenant Nay God himself discharges this name from all federal restriction Behold I am Jehovah the Lord God of all flesh And in those numerous places wherein he is relatively called Jehovah Isebaoth the Lord of Hosts the Hosts of Heaven are denoted not the Armies of Israel though sometimes †1 Sam. 17.45 these two Titles the Jehovah or Lord of Hosts and God of the Armies of Israel are joyned together of which however the latter only is federal to that People And infinite other * Psal 144.15 Zech. 13.19 Texts there are to shew Jehovah to be a name unlimited and in its natural signification antecedent to that of the God of Israel * Zech. 14 9. and to be acknowledged by all Nations in their general Conversion But further if the Septuagint used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a federal Name in the rendring the Hebrew Jehovah yet does it not follow that they took Jehovah for a federal Name For where-ever they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I believe they do every where there they according to the custom of their Nation read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Adonai according as they have since pointed it for that way of reading a religious first and at last a superstitious fear restraining the People from the common pronunciation of that greatest Name And hence it will follow that the Septuagint might take Adonai for a federal Name of God as their tutelar Lord in opposition to the Baalim or Lords adored by the bordering Nations So that whereas his Lordship throws up not only Elohim but Adonai too to the Objection he has undermined his own foundation for the federal signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially since in the 110th Psal God the Father is called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah and God the Son Adonai the chiefest Text cited out of the Old Testament in the New for the Dominion of Christ over his People and consequently an argument that the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from the Septuagint as reading Adonai How then shall the Apostles sense be cleared so that it may not establish two adorable Lords and Gods nor make Christ a Lord only by Advancement and Oeconomy And hereunto first let it be noted that this was written not to Aliens or Infidels and Strangers to our Faith for to such I confess it had not been so perfectly clear and intelligible but to a Christian Church who all from
a Creature St. John's Gospel and first Epistle were expresly written and these were a sort of Un-Christian Judaizers of several Characters from their proper Authors So that his Lordship's Observation though never so well intended is however partly false and partly impertinent And yet allowing this Argument as much force as can be designedly granted it it will amount to no more than this That the Enemies of our Religion could not upbraid us with a professed Worship of a professed Creature because he whom the Christians worshipp'd in our flesh was by them owned to be the Eternal God Yet no doubt the Jews ever did and do at this Day charge us with the Worship of a vile Creature who really as they think had no Deity in him else had they also thought him to be God they had been ipso facto converted to us the want of this Faith being the only Bar to their Conversion and the cause why they execrate both our Lord and us for this very Doctrine So unlucky is his Lordship even in the fairest part of this Discourse as if God had laid this Curse on him that he that had sophistically handled the Christian Faith in most part of it should not have the Glory or Comfort of having served it in any one particular A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum c. PART II. § 1. I Have now I think performed my first undertaking that his Lordship hath ill stated the Doctrines of our Faith A truth so evident to his own Clergy even those that would throw a friendly skirt over these Nudities that they ascribe all or seem willing so to do to haste inconsideration and want of judgment not to any heretical Designs or Contrivances Whether his Lordship will be thankful for these kinds of Excuse I cannot tell but at the best they are but Fig-leaves For can any Candour excuse an heedless or injudicious Lecture in a Bishop or Divinity Professor first uttered to a learned Body and after exposed to the Censure of the World in a matter most fundamental in Christianity most liable to prejudices and this after the most accurate determinations of the Church Universal especially since he so openly upbraids the Fathers and Patrons of this Faith with their unaccuracies and impertinencies and this not in their particular and private conceptions which the Church hath not authorized but in their most Catholick and established Theories Surely such a Cenfor ought to have been accurate above all Men and not to have needed the Candor of a Reader § 2. This dealing with the Fathers is such an indecent sort of immorality that 't is not to be endured in one of his Lordship's Character The Fathers it is true were Men and they have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those slips here and there incident to the infirmities of Humane Nature and if his Lordship had reverently touched upon any of these not with a design to blacken their memory but only to caution his Clergy against such forms or notions he had dealt very commendably But it falls out quite otherwise For he Taxes them for no real obliquities but their Catholick Principles fixes on them such Theories as they never dreamed of and such as are destructive of their own avowed Faith and this without quoting so much as one passage out of them he gives them not so much as one good word but finally presents them to us as a parcel of impertinent and self contradicting Bablers which how it conduces to the encouraging Deism and Heresie I humbly leave to the Censure of my Holy Mother the Church of England Sure I am as this ill office was utterly needless to his Exposition of the Faith so modesty ought to have repressed it if for no other consideration yet for this one reason That they may receive him into their Society with joy at the day when he shall be gathered unto his Fathers § 3. The Business then of this second part is to discuss the truth and justice of his Lordship's Imputations cast upon these Holy Worthies which he introduces thus by telling his Clergy that †P. 31. he will not pretend to inform them how this Mystery is to be understood and in what respect these Persons which he calls so according to custom not his own sense are believed to be one and in what respects they are Three By explaining a Mystery can only be meant the shewing how it is laid down and revealed in Scripture for to pretend to give any other Account of it is to take away its mysteriousness when the manner how it is in it self is offered to be made intelligible Now what doth this prima facie intimate but that it is not laid down in the Scripture in what respect the Persons are one nor in what respect they are Three But first in the Doctrine of Unity I think the Scriptures do sufficiently teach that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one in respect of Essence notwithstanding all the wriggles of Hereticks not only in that passage of St. John 1 Ep. 5.7 which his Lordship has exposed * Letter I from Zurich for doubted but in many others And if his Lordship dares deny this respect of Essence to be taught by the Scriptures concerning the Unity I will adventure the proof of it But if his Lordship be not so hardy then let him recant this Impeachment of the Scriptures that they have not taught us in what respect the Persons are One I am however content that Men of Candour take this only for an heedless slip not a designed Artifice Let it be so yet is it a dangerous one and used by the Men of the broad way that leadeth to destruction to the service of heretical Comprehensions The Antapologist to Dr. Sherlock owns the forequoted Text of St. John for undoubted There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit and these Three are One. This saith he is Scripture * Antap. p. 5. but how they are one the Scripture teacheth not What is this fetch for but that we may not press the Heretick's to own an essential Unity but whatsoever else will serve their several Turns and deliver them from the Canon of the Faith But secondly his Lordship ought to have instructed his Clergy in what respects they are Three according to the Scriptures which do instruct us herein with certain notions and respects by which they are distinguished from each other in the Unity of Essence For are not Father and Son Personal Characters and founded on a substantial generation the Father being the Person Generant as such and the Son the Person generated as such And is not the Logos the substantial Issue of the Eternal Mind and as such distinguished from its Parent The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son and does the personal Offices of a Paraclete by mission from the Father and
grant such a conception allowable that there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies For if he be no Tritheist in allowing this Conception why does he reflect on it as Tritheite in the Fathers And yet his Lordship diversifies the Operations much more exclusively each of other Person than any Fathers do and in such a manner as inferrs a Tetrad in the Deity in which according to his Lordship the Father must be a second Principle For his words run thus †P. 42. In the Divine Essence which is the simplest and perfectest Vnity there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies By the first God may be supposed to have made and to govern all things by the second to have actuated and been most perfectly united to the Humanity of Christ and by the third to have inspired the Penmen of the Scriptures and the Workers of Miracles and still to renew and purifie all good Minds all which notwithstanding we firmly believe there is but one God Now whatsoever acts by another is distinct from that other by which it acts and prior in the Agency by the order of Reason If then God acts by the first which is the Father that God is in Nature and Subsistence antecedent to the Father and the first hath a former and if God who acts by three be distinct from those three by which he acts there are then four Distincts and Distinctions in the Deity or else the three are not essential in the Deity but only operant and unsubstantial Powers and Qualities Yet is it against Faith to say that God acts or creates by the Father because it makes him secondary by an unallowable conception the Canonical Faith herein being that God original or God the Father acts by his Son and Holy Spirit But whether we make the Father primary or secundary if we attribute the Creation to him exclusively of the Logos and Holy Spirit and the Inspirations to the Spirit exclusively of the Father and the Son and the Divine Operations in the Union of our Nature with the Logos to the Logos only exclusively of the Father and Holy Spirit according to his Lordship's scheme of conceptions we rove from truth from Scripture from Catholick Tradition which ascribes these to the single Persons by a peculiar respect of Oeconomick Order but not by an exclusive propriety of Operation And yet though his Lordship recommends this conception of such a separate Agency in his three Divine Anonymities yet can he find no such incongruities in the received Doctrines of those his despised Fathers But 't is time to take breath and consider what reformation following extinguished this Tritheism in the Catholick Church and Faith Why Others therefore laid another foundation in one numerical Deity or Being Now what is this but to insinuate nay openly to assert that the former Fathers that believed Emanations and Foecundity and argued from the specifick Homoousion with the respective Operations did not fundamentally own one individual Deity And yet how could they that stuck to the Nicene Creed deny the fundamental Article of one God which yet all the taxed Fathers defended as the Faith of all the former Fathers who made the Monarchy a fundamental Principle against Gentilism and were herein exactly and professedly followed by all their Successors Nay the feature of his Lordship's reflexion seems to attaint all Antiquity of Tritheism till after the Doctors of the specifick Homoousion and distinct Operations ceased as not holding the Unity of the Godhead for his conjunction therefore makes this Unity a post-nate Principle taken up upon the apprehension that the former Doctrines of the Church were Tritheite according to his Lordship's general Imputation § 14. And now it seems high time to observe upon what fancies for they are represented as such these Tritheite Principles were reformed by these over seri patrum nepotes * They then observed †P. 32. that the Sun besides its own Globe had an Emanation of Light and another of Heat which had different Operations and all from the same Essence And that the Soul of Man had both Intallection and Love which flowed from its Essence So they conceived that the Primary Act of the Divine Essence was its Wisdom by which it saw all things and in which as in an Eternal Word it designed all things This they thought might be called the Son as being the generation of the Eternal Mind while from the fountain Principle together with the inward Word there did arise a Love that was to issue forth and that was to be the Soul of the Creation and was more particularly to animate the Church and in this Love all things were to have life and favour This was rested on and was afterwards dressed up with a great deal of dark nicety by the Schools and grew to be the universally received explanation So that it seems these conceptions these reforming conceptions are very novel and the Doctrine derived from them became not universal but by the Definitions of the Schools § 15. But before we come to justifie their due Antiquity let us consider whether as his Lordship represents them the Tritheism of the former Fathers were really amended by them For in this Simile here are two Emanations from the Globe of the Sun Light and Heat which have different Operations which if they represent different Operations of the different Persons in the Deity this reduces that Tritheism which the Simile was designed to avoid So unhappy were these Theological Tinkers in mending the former Theories § 16. But however let us see whether these Theories had not really a more early Original and Reception in the Universal Church I begin with the Simile of the Sun †Apolog c. 21. sup citat §. 7. Vide. Now Tertullian the most ancient of all our Latin Writers used this Simile and says that in respect thereof the Logos was ever backward celebrated under this Title as the Ray of God So * Instit l. 4. c. 29. ille tanquam Sol hic quasi radius à Sole porrectus Lactantius had learned the same Simile from Tertullian or his Church So †In Evan. Joh. c. 5. Tract 20. Si separas candorem Solis à Sole separa Verbum à Patre St. Austin an African likewise had from his Fathers derived the same Example of the Sun The Greek Fathers that lived in and just after the Nicene Council so often so uniformly and canonically use it who yet argued from the specifick Sense of the Homoousion that the citations of them would fill a Volume so this Fancy is not later than these Tritheit Homooufiasts And to let his Lordship see that it was an Ante-Nicene Simile not only the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may convince but the express production of it * Theognost ap Athan de Syn. Nic. con Arian Decret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
word though so very variously significant is however used either absolutely as when it 's said God is a Spirit or Angels are ministring Spirits a Spirit hath not Flesh and Blood and other sayings of the same formal intention in the Word or else relatively and attributively to something whose Spirit it is or is called Of this latter form is the characteristick Title of the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit of God and Christ c. And the Word Spirit thus relatively attributed to Beings simply immaterial denotes an active Principle Power or Virtue in them and this either Potential or Moral Thus it is mentioned as a potential Principle Josh 5.1 Esa 19.3 Luk. 1.17 as a moral Principle Ezr. 1.1 5. Psal 32.2 and 34.18 and 51.10 17. Esa 57.15 Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26 Matth. 5.3 Luke 9.55 Joh. 4.23 24. Rom. 8.15 16. 1 Cor. 4.21 Eph. 4.23 1 pet 3 4. and so in infinite other places So likewise the Spirit of God seems oft to denote in him what we commonly call a Principle acting potentially but chiefly and most especially in the sanctifical Operations of all which the Holy Spirit is the proper and immediate Spring and Original Hence the Works of the Creation as attributed to the Spirit of God Job 26.13 and 33.4 where I see no reason to depart from the ordinary and canonical and characteristick sense of the Term. From which places in my opinion we may best interpret Gen. 1.2 where it is said that the Spirit of God moved or hovered upon the face of the Waters In this potential way of Operation the Spirit of God acted the Prophets Judges and other Worthies of Israel in their mighty Words and Works that exceeded the Power of Humane Nature as may be seen in very many Texts of Scripture Thus the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary and the Power of the most High did over-shadow her Luke 1.35 For I here preferr the Catholick Interpretation of the Creeds which teach this to be the supervention of the Holy Spirit from other like Texts and Universal Tradition before the sense of * Ad Autolyc p. 81. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophilus Antiochenus who applies them to the Logos as speaking by the Prophets though the †Symb. Constantinop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick Church hath determined the Divine Spirit that spake by them to be the third Person Which Spirit acting Elias was feared by Obadiah that it would carry the Prophet out of all discovery 1 King 18.12 And according to this potential notation we call all subtle and vigorous Powers in Nature Spirits as also the courage and activity of any animal I know the Rabbins Crellius and others make this potential Spirit to be a created effluent Virtue but the permanency of it in God with its other properties and descriptions every where exhibited in the Scriptures do evince the contrary reason it self also witnessing that God never was without an omnipotent Spirit of Holiness which may very properly consist in the essential Love of God than which what can be more vigorous active influential and productive We see how strong the Spring and Spirit of an ardent love is toward the most mighty adventures and how infinitely more must it be in the Divine Nature from which it gave Life and Spirit to universal Nature and blessed every thing according to its order and cherishes all things by a lively and penetrating Providence and drives on all the Motions and Springs of the whole Creation by a perpetual and constant impulse and at times exerted miraculous Operations to the manifestation of its transcendent Power Goodness and Holiness and thereby to the conversion of Men to the Living God But this Principle if I may so call it without offence as I design without error more exhibits its own appropriate celebrated Character of Holy to our Conceptions by actual Inspirations of Sanctity into all sanctified Minds And such is the sense of the Catholick Antiquity For being * Orig. Hom. 11. in Numer 18. de Princip l. 1. c. 8. Greg. Thaumat in Symbol Revelat. Athan con Arium Disp Dial. de Trinit Naz. de Heron Philosoph Basil con Eunom l. 5. de Sp. S. Episcop Philosopho in Concil Nicen. ap Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pseudo-Chrys in Matth. 7. Hom. 18. Aug. de verb. Dom. in Evan. Matth. c. 12. Ser. 11. Faustin ad Flaccil Imperat. de fide con Arian original Holiness it self it 's most connatural and consimilar Operation is the sanctifical for which cause it is signally called Holy as the substantial immediate Principle of all communications of Sanctity and Goodness to the Creatures And as a †Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christiani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and holy temper in the Soul of Man is called a good and holy Spirit which therefore acts accordingly and gives us thereby a Theory of the Holy Spirit of God So the essential Spirit of Holiness in God is if my infirmities may be permitted to speak my sense as it were the very temper of his Nature called often also his Heart and Soul under the same connotation which the impious Man is said to grieve Esa 63.10 Eph. 4.30 as being an internal and essential Principle offended by those Wits to which it bears an eternal and unalterable aversion which is also very strong and potential being †Ambr. de dignit hum condit c. 2. Greg. Nyssen de homin Opisic c. 5. Aug. in Ep. Job Tract 6. in Evang. Job c. 2. Tract 9. in c. 17. Tract 105. expresly called by some Fathers the substantial Love of God from the Authority of St. John From this property of Love Goodness and Holiness it is called by St. Paul the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1.4 for I see no reason to recede from the canonical propriety and by Nehemias and David the good Spirit of God teaching and leading Men unto righteousness Neh. 19.20 Psal 143.10 And the Psalmist describes the Holy Spirit of God and a right Spirit in Man as consimilar Principles of moral Goodness the one as the temper of the Divine the other as the Temper of an Humane Mind Psal 51.10 11. which being by Sanctification likened to the Spirit of God is said to communicate of the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 13.13 Philip. 2.1 whereby we are said to be one Spirit with God 1 Cor. 6.7 by being herein transformed into his Image 2 Cor. 3.18 and purified in obeying the Truth by the Spirit unto an unfeigned love of the Brethren 1 Pet. 1.22 And when St. Paul asserts the fruits of the Spirit to be Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Charity Righteousness and Truth Gal. 5.22 Eph. 5.9 by the Fruit he shews the nature of the Root and Principle viz. that the Spirit of God is by Nature Loving Good and Holy and by Grace endearing and sanctifical And this Character of
that the true notion of these three Persons was popular and received by an indubitate and good Tradition or else our Lord and his Apostles having a recondite Notion of them unexplained could not be understood by that People Nor could Nathanael and Peter and others have made a right confession of Faith without any preliminary Catechism of the Notion had it not been general And in vain had God the Father at his Baptism declared him to be his Son in whom he was well pleased to all the multitude had they been Strangers to the true sense of the Title which imported not only a Royalty but an * Matth. 4. Mar. 1. Luke 4. omnipotent Divine Power even had he pleased of turning Stones into Bread by his mere Commandment †Matth. 8.29 Mar. 5.7 Luke 8.28 and to torment even Devils before their time and also a Divine Knowledge of the Father for no Man knoweth the Father but the Son who being the * Luke 4.34 Holy One of God was therefore the Holy One of Israel And though it may be objected that when the Jews demanded him to come down from the Cross if he would be believed 't is said by the Evangelists If he be the Christ the King of Israel let him come down from the Cross yet this supposes that had he this Power he must have it as God the Christ and King and not as a Man only anointed King of Israel So that neither the true nor false Conceptions of the Jews concerning his Filial Character can help his Lordship and his Criticks in their first Conceptions of it in his Humanity And here indeed there lies a large and noble Field before me for a Theory concerning the Titles of Christ Lord King of Israel c. on what grounds they stand in the Divine and Humane Nature wherein might be shewn that neither are the first Conceptions of all these in our Lord's Humanity to the utter ruin of Criticism but it being not here necessary and withal being a matter of a large speculation I wave it in this place and the rather because if my unhappy Eyes will hold out so far to serve my designs I intend a peculiar Treatise concerning the Kingdom of God in which these Titular Characters of our Lord will be largely discussed In the mean time I am sorry his Lordship's Criticks are spoiled in their kind aims to explain the Texts that teach the inferiority of Christ as Man to the Father but I am pretty well pleased however that the Catholick Doctrine has no need of such new fashioned planes to smooth its difficulties § 40. But now at last the Scene opens and the whole mysterious intrigue comes out why all this pother is made For saith my Lord * P. 32. If this be true all the Speculations concerning an Eternal Generation are cut off in the strict sense of the words though in a larger sense every Emanation of what sort soever may be so called But was it my Lord's part to leave this in suspense whether it be true or no To leave hereby a liberty to deny the Nicene Faith that he was begotten of his Father before all Worlds Would not common honesty oblige a Divinity Professor to determine one way or other between the inconsistent Fathers and these sagacious Criticks either for or against an Eternal Generation and yet to let us see which way he inclines he brings Texts of Scripture perverted for the sense of Hereticks but not one sacred syllable for the Fathers nothing but fastidious and exposing Censures Yet this was not enough The distinct Emanations of the Son and the Holy Spirit were to be confounded though one be from the Father only and immediately the other from the Father and the Son as we Westerns confess or to speak more like the Greeks from the Father by the Son that so the Emanation of the Holy Spirit being in a larger sense called Generation the Holy Spirit may in a larger sense be called the Son of God And so God the Father shall have improperly two Sons but really none at all till the being of Christ's Humanity § 41. And now for a blessed Epiphonema * P. 32. But it may be justly questioned whether by these they have made it better to be understood or more firmly believed or whether others have not taken advantage to represent these subtilties as Dregs either of Aeones of the Valentinians or of the Platonick Notions And it being long before these Theories were well stated and settled it is no wonder if many of the Fathers have not only differed from one another but even from themselves in speaking upon this Argument When Men go about to explain a thing of which they can have no distinct Idea it is very natural for them to run out into a vast multiplicity of words into great length and much darkness and confusion Many †Witness P. 41 42. c. impertinent Similes will be urged and often impertinent reasonings will be made use of all which are the unavoidable consequences of a Man's going about to explain to others what he does not distinctly understand himself Now to this calumnious reflexion it were enough to say the Lord rebuke thee but for the sake of others that may either glory in it or be beguiled by it I will answer it in order First then all these traduced Theories of Faith are universally professed and received in the whole Church of God and have but a very few Adversaries And we have reason to attribute this universal Consent herein to the Piety and Labours of the Ancients who so victoriously defended it against the Highest Parts Principalities and Powers For whatsoever failures and lesser mistakes from which no mortal is or can be secure may sometimes appear in a course of nice Disputations yet the main Body of them appeared so strong and convincing that they bowed down the whole World into Conviction I mean the Christian World while the Adversaries thereof have deservedly attained the glory of preparing the way for Mahometism What matter then is it if these Divine Theories which his Lordship opprobriously calls subtilties be abusively represented by wicked Men Does it follow that the Theology is vicious and to be quitted Such Counsel as this would soon have strangled the whole Christianity which at first was every where traduced What they if that Impostor Sandius * Enucl Hist Eccl. l. 1. would derive our Faith from Valentinus The vulgar Christians do not know nor trouble themselves with those fabulous Aeons nor is there any danger of frighting them from the Faith by this imputation And as for the Learned or Students in Antiquity they will soon discover the falshood and even to save or facilitate their labour 't is unanswerably †Bull. Defens Fid. Nicen. p. 64 65. alib Sect. 3. c. 1. done to their hands already by an Author his Lordship will never be able to answer But this Calumny is
as silly as it is false and debasing For Irenaeus the great mawl of Valentinianism defends our very Faith and Theology against that and all other Gnostick Heresies Nay and St. John one would think was a Preacher of our Doctrine And can any one be brought to believe that St. John and St. Irenaeus were tainted or drunk with the Lees of Aeonism Let Sandius therefore and his Lordship make what advantages they please against our Theories by their Valentinian Character there is no great danger The Lion's Hide covers a very tractable Animal For after all Sandius his Disguises his Father Arius his Thalea which he swaggered as descending from Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Grandsire Kalentine and his Symmystae Well to go along with his Lordship how came the poor old doating Fathers to nod thus His Lordship tells us 't was because 't was long before these Theories were well stated and settled And here I had been at a sad loss for an Epocha of this settlement if I had not by good fortune met with Dr. Burnet's Letter of Remarks upon the two strong Box Papers where he tells us thus It seems plain that the Fathers before the Council of Nice believed the Divinity of the Son of God to be in some sort inferiour to that of the Father and for some Ages after the Council of Nice they believed them indeed both equal but they considered these as two different beings and only one in Essence as three Men have the same Humane Nature in common among them and that as one Candle lights another so one flowed from another and after the fifth Century the Doctrine of one Individual Essence was received If you will be further informed concerning this Father Petau will satisfie you as to the first Period before the Council of Nice and the Learned Dr. Cudworth as to the second So then the Primitive Faith till the Nicene Council was That there were two Divinities or Deities one of the Father and another of the Son and that of the Son somewhat inferiour to that of the Father From the Council of Nice to the sixth Century they believed two or three different * What is this but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essences or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beings and these equal and no otherwise of one Essence than three Men that are of one common Nature But in the beginning of the sixth Century then their Eyes and Faith opened into one individual Essence and then I suppose the matter was settled Be this so for once what will it amount to That all the Fathers till the sixth Century were Polytheists and Idolaters not excepting the Nicene When a Man thinks upon this he must needs confess it not †Discours 3. p. 65. It were perhaps too invidious to send Men to Petavius to find in him how much the Tradition of the several Ages has varied in the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith only perhaps but for certain invidious to send Men to the Jesuit for a Calumny against the Primitives and were so to Dr. Cudworth to make his History of such Consequence But as for Petavius and his Admirers I think them all refuted by Dr. Bull beyond all possibility of a reply and as for the Arguments upon a Specifick Homoousion cited by Dr. Cudworth and others I have above accounted for their innocency § 11. and proved that though they argued from a specifick Homoousion through the Arian Cavils especially to avoid the Charge of Sabellianism yet they did not assert this alone as his Lordship charges them But now to come upon my Lord 's blind side In his Letter he says the Post Nicene Fathers were for an equality and used for their Theory the Simile of Candles In the Discourse we are upon he says the Simile of Candles gave rise to the Nicene form Light of Light and therefore must be used by the Ante-Nicene Fathers whom he asserts to be for an inequality In his Letter the specifick Homoousiasts are equalizers but in his Discourse the same are Subordinators But here again I would sain see the Simile of Candles produced among the Post-Nicene Homoousiasts to whom in his Letter my Lord assigns it Again in his Discourse the Theory of the Divine Wisdom and Love is said to be consequent or concomitant to the Doctrine of one individual Essence In the Letter this Doctrine commences with the sixth Century But all the Fathers that I have above-cited for the Theory of the Wisdom and Love of the Divine Mind especially § 21. § 23. lived long before his Lordship 's Epocha even in the fourth Century the very lowest and latest But since his Lordship is become a Father no wonder if he falls into contradictions too against himself and truth too for it seems 't is of ancient prescription with Men of that Character But in short I thought all these traduced Theories to have been ever settled and that settlement not begun but continued and defended only by the Councils and Fathers in several Ages according as seemed then most seasonable in respect of the Heresies and Sentiments then fermenting which occasions a seeming variety in forms of expression but no real difference in the Substance of their Faith that so Men herein might charge them with mutual or self-contradictions And yet that which we stand for is not every notion of every Father but what they all agree in and such are those Theories which his Lordship hath exposed as Exorbitant Let his Lordship prove their express contradictions each to other in these established and received Theories and then indeed he may more creditably expose his Father's Nakedness though that practice is but of ill and execrable prescription But as his Lordship has upbraided the Primitive Tradition of the Faith and the Scriptures in these Discourses and the forementioned Letter and loaded the Traditors with so much reproach he has done what in him lies to discourage Students from reading or regarding them and not only so but he has put such a Dagger into the hands of Deists and the open Enemies of all Revealed Religion as he himself will never be able to extort for who will believe the Church that she received the New Testament from Men divinely inspired when for Five Hundred Years after Christ her Principles were Polytheist and Idolatrous and she knew not the very first Rudiments of a true Faith and when she at last did so yet fell into divers silly conceits and Similes about it since scorned and rejected by the Critick Tribe § 42. And now I am resolved to end though his Divinity affords much more corrigible matter At the horrour whereof I leave him to God's Mercy and the Churches Prayers but his Writings of this stamp either to his own ingenuous Recantation or Canonical Censure FINIS