is and bring as a proof of this that Text of Isai 53. Who shall declare his generation But then upon second thoughts least the People should laugh at their Inconstancy they themselves revoke this second Creed and strive to get in all the Copies of it and procure an Edict from the Emperour which threatens all those that shall detain them Now indeed we may see here a very foolish inconstancy in these Hereticks and that they had a very ill hand at making Creeds to oblige all the World under the pain of an Anathema to believe such a thing at one time and the next day to disbelieve it themselves but this is nothing to the Orthodox Faith which stood always firm and unchangeable After the Authour has been spitting his Venom against the union of the three Persons he now begins to do the same against the union of Christ's Divinity with his humanity For he would have that upon supposition there are three persons in the same Individual nature that either the Nestorian or the Eutychian Doctrine was the true For says he there are but two ways imaginable in reason either Christ must be two Persons because he has two such different natures or he must have but one nature because he is but one Person But for all our Authours hast why can't we imagine a third way that he should be two Natures and but one Person This is as easy to imagine and I am sure as reasonable too For first It does not follow that because he has two Natures he must be two Persons for Nature and Personality are not reciprocal terms for there may be two or three or more Natures where there is but one Person The Athanasian Creed most excellently expresses this As the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ There is the sensitive nature in Man as well as the rational there is the rational Soul one distinct substance united to the Body another distinct substance and yet these two so distinct Natures are but one Person Now what more contradiction does it imply that there should be a Personal Union between Divinity and Humanity than there does between Rationality and Sensibility If there be any more difficulty in one than the other it is this That in the former the union of the Divinity with the Humanity there is an union of two reasonable Natures which are distinct Persons of themselves as all rational Individuals are and therefore they must be as distinct Persons after the union as before But why so If they are united they are not distinct for all union is a negation of distinction or division Two single pieces or pounds of Gold are two distinct Substances or Bodies but if these be united by melting down into one they are still two pounds but yet they are but one Individual Body And so it is in the Union of all other Bodies Well but what is this to the Union of Spirits or rational Beings Yet it is something for if Spirits be united they must follow the Laws of Union as well as other Beings If they be united they must be one in something for to be one in nothing is no Union at all Now in the Union of the Divinity with the humanity wherein possibly can their Oneness consist but only in their personality Their Natures are most certainly distinct for Gods is one Nature and Mans is another and therefore if they be one in any thing it must be in their Personality Upon this Union they acquire an Oneness which they had not before and as the two distinct pounds of Gold upon their melting become one Individual piece which is the Oneness they gain so the Divinity and Humanity upon their Union gain one Individual Personality which is the Oneness they acquire Well but here are two rational Natures united which must have two Reasons and two Wills and therefore must be two Persons It does not therefore follow that because there are two Reasons and two Wills there must therefore be two Persons any more than it follows that a Man is three living Creatures from the Union of the Vegetative the Sensitive and the Rational Soul in his nature For as the Subordination of these Souls one to another make him but one Vivens so the Subordination of these rational Natures one to the other make them but one Person or rational Suppositum The Divine Nature is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or governing Principle in the Union of the Godhead with the Humanity as the rational Soul is in the Union with the two other Souls and therefore though there are two Reasons and two Wills yet those of the Inferiour Nature are subordinate to the Superiour and therefore are determined by the operations of that Nor Secondly is it necessary that if he be one Person he should be but one Nature because Nature and Person are not reciprocal terms and because as we have already shewn that more Natures may be united into one Person for 't was the Person of the Godhead that took upon him the Humanity so that he has no other Personality than what he had from all eternity but yet he has another Nature than what he had from all eternity because he likewise took upon him our Nature which he had not from eternity but took it upon him at that time when he was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin Though he still continued one Person yet he had two Natures the Nature of God which he had from all eternity and the Nature of Man which he assumed at that particular time and this without any change but only in the manner of his subsisting which was before in the pure Glory of the Son of God and afterwards in the habit of our Flesh All the Properties of each Nature are as distinguishable now as before the Properties of the Humanity are incommunicable to the Divinity and those of the Divinity to the Humanity 'T is proper only to the Divinity to be the cause of all things to be immense eternal omnipresent c. and 't is proper only to the Humanity to have a beginning to be circumscribed in place to be passible c. If therefore they have these distinct and incommunicable Propertie they must have distinct Natures from which these Properties flow though they be united into one Person And thus I think I have answered every thing that is material in this Chapter and I could very willingly have done with it but only because it may be expected I should say something to those invidious Remarks he makes upon some of the first holy Councils for the Determinations they made in matters of Faith and the condemnation of Hereticks As to what he says about the Heresie of Nestorius 't is not worth considering but he has a little too grosly represented the matter of Eutyches which I must not pass over without a little Reflection He would insinuate that Eutyches was first
Fathers the true Christian justifying Faith CHAP. IV. Credulity not an excess of Divine Faith What deference is to be paid to General Councils That they cannot err à piè Credibile They are the best expedients of Vnity CHAP. V. The belief of Christ's Divinity one of the difficulties in the planting the Gospel The belief of this frequently incouraged by our Saviour The belief of Christ's Divinity useful to Religion 1. By gaining Authority to his Laws 2. By improving our love and gratitude 3. By assuring us of pardon CHAP. VI. Our Saviour's Titles not Hyperbolical Not called the Son of God as a great Mountain is called the Mountain of God c. He is not the Son of God as Angels are The splendor of his Nature no bar to our being certain of his Divinity CHAP. VII The Authour's Testimony of Constantine concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity examined Constantine ' s judgment of Arianism The supposition of a plurality of Worlds no Argument that the Eternal Son of God should not dy for the sins of this No Argument against the Trinity because it is not said expresly in Scripture that every one to be baptized must believe in it The Ancient Christians before Baptism always instructed in this Doctrine A Testimony out of Justin Martyr examined A Testimony of Leonas in Socrates examined CHAP. VIII Another Testimony of Constantine examined In what sense our Saviour's Original is unknown How Melchizedeck is a Type of Christ. The Authour 's saying that the Evangelists do confound the Genealogies on purpose to puzzle us considered A Vindication of Bishop Alexander's contest with Arius A Citation out of Socrates concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined Athanasius's explication of the Trinity defended Not absurd to believe a mystery Account of the proceedings of the Council of Syrmium No necessity that Christ having two Natures should have two Persons His being but one Person does not make him have but one Nature An account of the Condemnation of Eutyches An account of the Heretical Council at Ephesus that restored him The wickedness of the Eutychians in that Council The reason of the honour done to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon The favour granted to the Eutychians by Basiliscus no Argument against the Orthodox Doctrine Monothelitism not owing to the Doctrine of the Trinity An Account of the rise of it CHAP. IX To assert our Saviour's Divinity does not dishonour him by making him comprehensible An Account of the saying of the Council of Antioch which the Authour alledges The Arians were never the less such for all their subscriptions to the Council of Nice A Vindication of Athanasius's flying to Julius the Roman Bishop and of Julius An account of the Council of Sardica Athanasius purged from his pretended Crimes A Schism between the two Churches did not arise from the disagreement of the Arians with the Orthodox at Sardica The troubles in the Church not imputable to the Orthodox Doctrine The prevailing of the Orthodox Doctrine did not proceed from the greatness of the Bishop of Rome Nor from the ignorance of the Ancient Roman Church A Vindication of Theodosius's Decree for the establishing the Orthodox Doctrine Of Charity to Hereticks from the example of Alexander The ill consequences of Heresies though not foreseen yet imputable to it Arian and Socinian Expositions of Scripture unreasonable to make the greater compellations of Christ stoop to the smaller CHAP. X. Of the Authour's Reflection on Dr. Hammond's Treatise of Fundamentals The Doctrine of the Trinity agrees with the Authour's first qualification of matter of Faith viz. To be sufficiently understood by the meanest capacity His second qualification considered that it must be the express word of God The Trinity proved by Scripture His third qualification considered Eternal Life promised to the belief of our Saviour's Divinity The use and necessity of Creeds in the Church The promise of eternal Life not only made to the belief of the Resurrection Why this promise was made so expresly to that CHAP. XI The necessity of Mens rising with the same numerical Bodies evinced from Reason Scripture and Antiquity The Authour 's first Argument answered His second His third His fourth ENQUIRY II. The Orthodox extend Faith no further than the Scripture does They do not exalt Faith above holiness Taking hold on Christ by Faith imputed righteousness c. not phrases purely Calvinistical but used by the Ancients We do not advance Faith above Charity How far our Charity to Hereticks is to extend The behaviour of the Ancient Christians to Hereticks We do not advance Faith above Reason The use of the word mystery in prophane Authours in Scripture and Fathers We use the word in the same sense it is used in Scripture ENQUIRY III. The unfairness of the Authour in laying his charge against the Orthodox and making it out against the Papists The Doctrine of the Trinity not prejudicial to our Lord's honour in hindring the progress of the Gospel Not prejudicial to the Tranquillity of Christians Minds nor to the peace of the Church Conclusion That the Church of England does recommend the three Creeds to our Belief The Authour's Arguments to the contrary answered His reflection on the late Convocation considered CONTENTS OF THE REFLECTIONS ON THE New Edition THE Authour's excuses for his first Book considered His new Explication of the Trinity The Council of Alexandria did not condemn the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia proper words to explain what is meant by them and the Latins did understand by one what the Greeks did by the other The same shewn of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Persona None but the Hereticks refused these words The Doctor 's Explication of the Trinity downright Sabellianism How Sabellius Explained the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not explained by the Ancients by being the Wisdom of the Father Nor the Holy Ghost by being an Energy Neither St. Austin nor Dr. Sherlock of our Author's Opinion AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE THE Authour in this by as much as can be gather'd from him goes upon two Arguments to overturn the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity the first is Because as he pretends the Disputes about this have been the decaying of Christianity and the prevailing of Mahometanism in the East the second is Because as he says this Doctrine is contrary to the great Simplicity in which the Gospel was deliver'd and which it does recommend In the proof of the first of these he spends half his Preface and indeed has got through four of his long Columns before he comes to any thing that looks like a Conclusion from his Premises Soon he is admiring the swift Progress of Christianity through the World notwithstanding the Power and Malice of its Adversaries and the Meanness of its Propagators and soon again he is as humble an Admirer of the good fortune of Mahomet's Religion and withal makes this most
of his being certified of the Resurrection My Lord and my God our Saviour gives his blessing not only to him but to all those that shall believe this without being Eye-witnesses of his Resurrection to confirm them in it Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed And thus we find our Saviour did many of his miraculous Cures in requital of their Faith and their ready confession of his Divinity as on the blind Man Mat. 20. that cryed out so vehemently have mercy on me O Lord thou Son of David and Luke 17. when the blind Man cries out Jesus thou Son of David have mercy on me our Saviour tells him upon his Cure thy faith hath saved thee v. 4. Where by the Son of David is meant the Messias who according to the Jewish Doctors was to be God So that this Confession of his being the Son of David was a Confession of his Divinity which was a great means to incline our Saviour to work their Cure and to tell one of them that his Faith had saved him And thus we have let our Author know there was some other use of Faith at the beginning of the Gospel than what he mentions and that there was not only a need of Faith to strengthen them against the dangers c. which the Gospel brought on them but to make them believe in Christ's Divinity and to profess that most important Article of our Christian Faith 2. The next thing which the Authour in this Chapter would have is That Faith in the Gospel has no relation to Christ's Divinity because he says God like a good Prince would not load his good subjects with unnecessary burdens but only such as there was reason for and which were necessary to Piety and a good Life Now I hope that our Authour and his Friends for all their pretence to reason will not be so bold with God Almighty as to give the Rationale of all his Commands and exactly to shew the motives that inclined his Eternal Will whose Judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out I confess I have always lookt upon it as a very daring piece of Confidence in these sort of Authours to say in case of a positive Command That God has not Commanded such a thing or This Command must not be understood in this manner because there is no reason that he should thus command us or as our Authour says 'T is to dishonour God to believe him to require Faith for any other reason than because it is necessary for our incouragement to Holiness or as he says afterwards For its serviceableness to the Divine Life For though we could see no reason for such a Command yet God may and 't is but reasonable as well as modest to think that God understands the reason of his own Laws best and that he that gave us these Precepts best understood the ends for which he designed them But because the Authour should not triumph too much over us poor dull Trinitarians or think there is no reason to be given why Faith in the persons of the Blessed Trinity should be commanded us or in particular that the Belief of the Divinity of our Saviour which it is our Authour 's chief design to impugn as appears by his following Chapters least I say he should think this Belief does contribute nothing to Religion and Piety let him be pleased to take with him these considerations First That to believe the Divinity of our Saviour is necessary to Religion because by it there is gained a greater Authority to his Laws For we find that Men are more and more inclined to respect Rules and Laws from the dignity of the person that gives them The Rules and Injunctions of ordinary persons are usually contemned and slighted though if the same came from a great and magnificent Person they would be embraced with a great deal of eagerness and veneration Therefore in compassion to this infirmity of Mankind it has pleased the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God to let a Person of the Divine Nature the Son of his Bosom to take our nature upon him to be himself the propounder of these Heavenly Rules of his holy Gospel to be himself the Promiser of all those glorious Rewards which he vouchsafes to propose to those that shall obey his Precepts Now such a Person as this could be liable to no exceptions though a Prophet might be mistaken in his Revelation might outgo or misapply his Credentials yet when God himself undertakes the Embassage malice it self can except nothing here so that this will be proof against the utmost Infidelity Secondly This Belief does further Religion because it improves our Love and Gratitude to God upon consideration of so immense a benefit Indeed it had been a great token of God's love to Mankind any ways to have contrived our Redemption to have rescued us from that forlorn miserable Estate into which we were fallen and to have placed us in a Capacity of attaining Everlasting Happiness But then his love is far greater to us when he hath sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins and to purchase our Redemption by such an unvaluable price And we may take notice that the Apostles do place the choisest mark of God's love in chusing such extraordinary means to work Mens Salvation by as the Incarnation and Death of his own Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son Joh. 3. 16. God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. Herein is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 4. 10. And truly this consideration that a Person of the glorious Trinity one that is God blessed for ever should for the sake of us wretched Sinners undergo such an exinanition as to take our nature upon him to live a miserable Life and to die a shameful Death to reconcile us unto God this consideration I say is of all most apt to work upon generous Minds to hinder them from offending so good and gracious a God after such an unparallel'd Mercy and nothing can be so effectual to make Men ashamed of the ingratitude of their Sins if they have any the least spark of Generosity or Vertue when they reflect upon this so inexpressible goodness Thirdly Because this Belief does secure us of the remission of our sins by an assurance we now have of the compleat satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of all Men. We know our Saviour came into the World that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name Now we are certain that it is not possible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin Heb. 10. 4. and we are as certain that the blood of meer Man would be as far from doing it as the other so that we could have no assurance of our Redemption
Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel who relates this matter understood by the Son of God was an Angel who from their nigh Conversation with God from the great Portion of Happiness and Glory he communicates to them and their so resembling him by their Purity and the Spiritualness of their Nature and from their living in Heaven with him like Children under the wing of their Parent from these and the like circumstances they were and not improperly called the Sons of God as we find in many places of Scripture as Psal 82. I said ye were Angels or the Children of the Most High So Job 1. 6. There was a day when the Sons of God or Angels presented themselves before the Lord. And the LXX translate this very place in Daniel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the Fourth was like the Angel of God So that we must grant That the Son of God here mentioned was an Angel of God But our Blessed Saviour was the Son of God in another manner than his for his Sonship is not founded upon any such Analogy as theirs is but upon the eternal generation of the Father for he being made so much better than the Angels as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they Heb. 1. 4. In short 't is impossible that our Saviour's Sonship should be such a Sonship as that of the Angels because the Apostle spends this whole Chapter to prove him a Person distinct from and above the nature of Angels and does besides set the Son of God in direct opposition to the Angels of God And of the Angels he saith c. v. 7. But unto the Son he saith c. v 8. When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world he saith Let all the Angels of God worship him v. 6. So that Christ's Sonship must be of another kind than that of the Angels or else there would be no ground for their contradistinction unless he was in a peculiar manner the Son of God in a supereminent extraordinary way not at all common to them The Authour having made these Remarks upon this Title of our Saviour The Son of God he proceeds to reckon up some others as the Messias or Christ Onely begotten Son of God which Characters he allows to speak a Person of unmeasurable Greatness a Person like his Emblem the Light so glorious that by our most intent view we cannot discover any thing of it but this That we cannot discover Now for all our Authour's haste one would imagine that something was discoverable in our Saviour by these Eulogies that God did design to manifest or discover something to us of him by these Revelations and not to make Revelations of things that were not revealable 'T is not to be expected indeed that by the help of Revelation we should dive into the Nature of our Saviour's eternal Essence for we are so far from a possibility of doing that that we are ignorant of the Essential Constitutions of the most inconsiderable Being we are conversant with But though we are ignorant of this yet we can tell when 't is revealed to us by God what kind of Nature our Saviour's is whether finite or infinite whether divine or humane The Gloriousness of his Nature does not so dazzle our Eyes as to make us confound distinct and express Idea's I have a certain though not an adequate Idea or Notion of God as a Being infinite incorporeal c. And when I am informed by Revelation tâ—at such a Person is that infinite incorporeal Being or that he has in such Revelation those Characters ascribed to him as are inseparable from the Divine Nature I must conclude That such a one is a Person of the Divine Nature such an infinite incorporeal c. Being which is my Notion of God Indeed the gloriousness of this Being keeps Men from discovering its Essence and from prying into its Nature but yet we may observe such Marks and Properties in it so as to have a distinct Conception of it from all other Beings in the World The Sun is a glorious Body and the more we strive to pry into its Constitution by gazing on it the more we are blinded and what then don 't we know the Sun when we see it for all this because our Eyes are so weak that we cannot stare into the Furnace of the Sun must we therefore take it for a Candle The Person of our Saviour is glorious and if it were a thousand times less glorious than it is I might not understand its Nature but when I am told that this Person is God that he is one of the Persons of the Divine Nature my Understanding tells me very clearly That all the marks and properties I have in my Mind of the Divine Nature must be attributed to this Person and though I understand nothing of his Essence or the precise modus of his Hypostasis yet I am sure he is that Being which I have a certain Idea of and which I call God So that 't is a great Fallacy in the Authour to say we don't know what our Saviour is because we cannot dive into his Essence for our discriminative Knowledge of one thing from another is not by discovering the Essences or internal Constitutions of them but by regarding their outward marks and properties and these every one has a Knowledge of for a Child knows a Rose from a Stone as well as a Philosopher though it knows not the Qualities and internal Constitutions of either Therefore when I am infallibly informed that such a Person is God I am infallibly assured he is that kind of Being I have the fore-mentioned Idea of though I am infinitely short of understanding its Nature II. Our Authour now comes to shew what is meant by believing in his Person which he branches into Two Parts First Believing in him with respect to his word Second In respect to his Person The First of which onely he speaks to in this Chapter and says that Christ is to his Followers as the Sun to Travellers 'T is no matter what they think of its magnitude or whether they think it be no bigger than a Bushel it guides them all alike and thus it is he says with the Sun of Righteousness 't is no matter what we believe him to be if we have but a Practical Faith which is all our Saviour he says requires And this he attempts to prove out of Joh. 10. a place than which one would have thought he should rather have chosen any Text in the New Testament besides How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus said I told you by calling God my Father and ye believe me not Joh. 10. 24 25. And presently after he tell them I and my Father are one v. 30. at which they took up stones to stone him saying thou being a man makest thy self God Now what can the Authour draw from this Why he says our
condemned by a Provincial Council and restored by a General one which is false The Council indeed at Constantinople which condemned Eutyches was but Provincial convened by Flavianus Bishop of that place but it did consist of Orthodox Members and their Determinations were very free wherein Eutyches had a fair hearing to answer every thing he would that was objected against him by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum his Accuser who before the meeting of this Council did kindly endeavour to reclaim him but when nothing would do he impeaches him in a Letter to Flavianus who cites him to the Council but he resolutely at first there avows his Heresie That Christ had but one Nature after the Union and at last when he began something to abate of his Stiffness he would by no means recant his Opinion therefore the Council who after several Sessions could get nothing from him but shuffling Nemine contradicente condemn him to which Condemnation not only the present Bishops subscribe but 23 of the Archimandrian Clergy that were there But this so General a Council as the Authour calls it which restored Eutyches was that which for its goodnes has been all along entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Thievish Council or the Synod of Robbers that packt Conventicle at Ephesus which was obtained by this means Eutyches vext at his Condemnation by the Council flies to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria and of Eutyches's Opinion and persuades him to espouse his Quarrel He readily complies and forthwith procures him an Interest in the Eunuch Chrysaphius President of the Palace that was a late Proselyte to the Eutychian Heresie and was very angry with Flavianus for his procedure in the late Council at Constantinople so he by his own and the Interest of the Empress Eudocia obtains of the Emperour Theodosius that there might be a Council held at Ephesus upon pretence to give Eutyches a fairer Tryal but in reality to be revenged on Flavianus and to establish Eutychianism Dioscorus gets to be President of this Council and brings with him a great number of Egyptian Bishops of his Opinion and obtains an order from the Emperour That none that were Judges of Eutyches before should be so now in this Council that though they were present yet they should not vote as Judges but only expect the Suffrages of the other Fathers because this was to be a Judgment passed upon what they had judged before What followed after this practising may easily be imagined the Faith of Eutyches is approved and Eusebius and Flavianus are condemned But yet it was not easy neither to get the Subscriptions of the Bishops to this till they were frightened to it by the Arms and Threats of the Souldiers and after all they set their names only to blank Paper to which the Abdication of those Bishops was afterwards affixed For thus some of the Bishops complain afterwards in the Council of Chalcedon We subscribed only to the pure paper with compulsion and violence having suffered many ill treatments we did unwillingly and forced by power set our hands They kept us even till night shut up in the Church and being sick they would not suffer us to rest nor would grant us any refreshments but the Souldiers with Swords and Staves stood over us and made us subscribe The Authour indeed grants that Dioscorus was accused in the Council of Chalcedon of some Uncanonical Proceedings and in truth they were Uncanonical with a Vengeance For besides all this underhand dealing and tumultuous proceeding in the Synod he was accused of no less than the Murder of Flavianus to whom he gave a kick in the Synod upon which he died three days after that he had contrived the Death of Theodorus and used several other illegal proceedings against him only because he was the Friend of Cyril his Predecessour of no less than notorious Incontinency of keeping Company with one Pansophia an infamous Woman and according to the information of Sophronius of downright Adultery of Blasphemy against the Trinity of being an Origenist of usurping the Imperial Authority and if all these Crimes can be wiped off with so soft a word as Uncanonical Proceedings I know not what things in the World those are which Men call Lewdness and Villaniny unless Hereticks by a special Title can claim an immunity from these names where they are guilty of the Crimes This Council in which these things were made out against Dioscorus the Authour says was procured by Leo because his Letters were slighted in the last though Zonoras tells us that Leo and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople intreated this Council of the Emperour least the blasphemous Opinions of Eutyches should be left uncondemned This Council the Authour does endeavour to render vain and tumultuous by crying out This is the Faith of the Fathers Apostles c. Leo believes so Cyril believes so Now I think it a very laudable occasion for Christian Mens exultation when their Faith is defended against the poison of Hereticks for to be still and unconcerned upon such an occasion would shew they had little love or regard for the Faith they profess But the reason why they used Leo and Cyril's name so expresly was because of their excellent Explications of Faith which were publickly read in the Council and universally approved and such Defenders of Orthodoxy do in all Ages deserve as great commendation But the Authour would pretend the Council did not understand their own meaning when they propounded the Question whether they would agree with Dioscours who said Christ consisted of two or with Leo who said there were two Natures in Christ which Question the Authour says is a Mystery and was designed only to advance the dignity of the Roman See But yet this is no very great Mystery to any one that considers Dioscorus or Eutyches's Doctrine who held indeed but one nature in Christ but yet in compliance with the Orthodox would say Christ consisted of two natures They would allow Christ at first to be compounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of two natures but then upon the Union or Composition they ceased to be two but the Orthodox held There were two distinct natures after Union which did both retain their distinct properties without confusion So that there is a great deal of difference between saying Christ does consist of two natures and There are two natures in Christ for the first does suppose them two only before Union the latter two before and after But the reason why Leo is put in opposition to Dioscorus is to confront that Heretick with a sound Orthodox Believer and to do an Honour to Leo for taking such pains to defend the true Faith which Dioscorus had used so much Artifice to destroy Well but the Emperour Basiliscus did not own this Council but sent Circulatory Letters to burn its Decrees This is very true and several other Eutychians as well as Basiliscus had as little kindness for it But
to Charity if we allow them no title to God's Favour or the Churches Communion What Alexander's thoughts were of the Arians as to God's favour I believe our Authour can't tell nor any one else at this distance and therefore he can be no rule to us as to this matter That he did Excommunicate some of these Hereticks Arius himself and some others mentioned by the Historians are sufficient Instances that he did not more was owing to their numbers and not to his Opinion of their not deserving it But as to his saying we allow them no title to God's Favour I suppose few will prescribe rules to that any further than they find them prescribed by God himself God Almighty may save for ought as we know thousands of Hereticks and Schismaticks but he has not in any ways let us know so much in his holy word we find but one Faith there that we can be saved by but one Church to communicate in and to both which the promises of the Gospel are made whatsoever God may do more is unknown to us 't is possible that he may do it but he has no where declared he will If he does afford Salvation to such Persons 't is not by the ordinary Methods of the Gospel and what his extraordinary Methods are God himself only knows The ordinary way he has marked out to us there is the rule for us to judge by and those that do not walk by this we may with Charity say they are out of the common way of Salvation The next excuse the Authour makes for them is because they may not see the ill consequences of their Doctrines for he says if this make them Hereticks it is only in Logick As for the Arian Doctrine that was not Heresy by consequence but a downright denial of our Lord's Divinity and that was plain enough by Arius's disputes at first though his Followers afterwards began to mince the matter and to spin their Heresy a little siner when it became too odious to the vulgar after the Nicene Determinations But however Heresy by deduction is still Heresy as the Conclusion is vertually contained in the Premises and the Corollaries in a Proposition The Heretical Consequence is not less Heresy because it is a little further removed than ordinary for whatsoever is true after a thousand deductions is true still and 't is the same in all manner of falsities Nay there is a guilt contracted from this reductive Heresy as well as from the other though such Heretical Person may not observe himself these Heretical or other wicked consequences For as in matter of practice if a Man does a thing unlawful though he may not apprehend all the ill consequences that may attend such an Action he is answerable for these consequences when they come to pass because he has entred upon an ill Action at first and therefore must bear himself off afterwards as well as he can thus it is in Heresy though the Heretick denies a Truth in God's Word the denial of which at first sight does not seem to have so much of Impiety yet for this first fault he is chargeable with the other impious Consequences which are drawn from it Thus when the Arians said there was a time when Christ was not though they did not expresly deny his Divinity yet they are guilty of this too though they pretend to abhor Idolatry yet they are guilty of this if they believe Christ to be a Created Being and yet do worship him A third excuse for the Arians is upon account of their expounding Scripture because he says they reconcile places seemingly contrary by the fairest Methods and so because 't is not the Custom of Writers ever to diminish but generally to advance the Character of the Person they write of therefore 't is reasonable that those places which make Christ equal to the Father should stoop to those that make him inferiour This would be very true if the Persons here spoke of had but one nature If a Poet or Oratour should call Achilles or Alexander a God and in other places a Man 't would be but reasonable for the Reader to take the latter compellation to be the truest and the other title of God to be only an Hyperbolical expression because these persons according to their Characters could not be Gods and Men too because they had only one humane nature but were only stiled Gods from some great and godlike qualities which were inherent in them But our Saviour having two Natures the Divine and the Humane united into one Person both compellations in a Grammatical sense might agree to him without any Figure or Hyperbole But besides our Saviour does not claim the name of the Son of God as a great magnificent Title to aggrandize his Office as Princes use to emblazon their dignity by great swelling Characters he came with another design into the World than to make a fine glaring shew here he came to preach up Meekness and Humility and was the most perfect Instance of them that ever was in the World Therefore if Christ was not God really and essentially and should withal take upon him this Title of God which is the greatest of all Titles on purpose only to raise him an esteem in the World as all Hyperbolical Titles are assumed for he would be then far from maintaining his Character of being a Person of the greatest Humility as he most certainly is if being by Nature really God he has condescended to take upon him our Flesh So that here is no need of running to a Figure to interpret these places we may understand them easily enough in their bare Grammatical sense for there is a thousand times more to be said for this than for any of the Socinians Figurative Constructions And so I think I have spoke to every thing material in this Chapter CHAP. X. Of the Word or Matter which is the Object of Faith THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Discourse about Fundamentals of Belief and by the way casts an odd sort of censure upon the Excellent Treatise of Dr. Hammond on that subject which he says is like an Advertisement in a Gazette which however cannot secure one from mistake if he meets the Man described I am sure that is an Excellent Treatise whatever the Authour thinks of it and I am sure too that admirable Man has handled this subject a thousand times more learnedly and honestly than the Authour has done it in this Chapter 'T is certain that the Authour's Heresy will not stand with the Doctor 's Enumeration of Fundamentals and that 's the reason in all probability that he speaks so slightingly of it and moreover to say the Doctor 's Enumeration every one will not receive for adequate for I believe he is one of that number but certainly it is no defect in that Discourse that it cannot secure every one from mistake that will blind his own Eyes for the Fundamental Doctrines of Religion are