AN ANSWER TO AN Heretical Book Called the Naked Gospel Which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxford Aug. 19. 1690. With some Reflections on Dr. Bury's New Edition of that BOOK To which is added a short HISTORY of Socinianism By William Nicholls M. A. Fellow of Merton College in Oxford and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Ralph Earl of Mountague 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Nomoc. Tit. 12. c. 2. LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. TO THE Right Honourable RALPH EARL of MOUNTAGUE c. My Lord I Am induced to lay these Papers at your Lordship's Feet both from the Relation I bear to your Lordship which does exact all my Labours as a Tribute and Acknowledgment of my Duty and Obligation as also from the Knowledge of the great Affection and Zeal You have always continued to shew for the True Religion assuring my self that whatsoever shall be offered in Defence of that especially against the now growing Heresie of the Times will find no small Acceptance in your Lordship's Favour It is sufficiently known my Lord what a signal Example of True Christian Piety and Courage against the Anti-trinitarian Heterodoxes was shewn by the excellent Sir Ralph Winwood your Lordship's Grandfather when he was Embassadour in Holland for King James I. in so strenuously opposing Vorstius the Socinian's Accession to the Professorship of Leyden whose Advice if the States had then been so prudent as to have taken the Socinian Heresies had not made the Progress in the World as now they have from the Lectures of him and his Successours in that Chair And therefore my Lord I am encouraged to think that your Lordship who does possess all the Noble Endowments of that great and good Statesman your Ancestor will favourably look upon that which is designed against those Heretical Tenets the Seeds of which have been mostly sown in this Nation by the Books of Vorstius and his Successours though often under Colour of Opinions of a more specious Name May it therefore please your Lordship to accept these my poor Endeavours in Defence of the True Faith which I have here presumed to entitle to your Lordship's Protection and be pleased to look on them as a small Token of the Duty and Service which shall be always owing to your Lordship from My Lord Your Lordship 's Most Dutiful Chaplain and most Obedient Servant W. Nicholls THE PREFACE THE occasion of writing this Treatise was to hinder the mischief that the Book it is designed to Answer was like to do which having lain so many Months without an Answer I did reasonably presume there was none design'd and therefore I thought such a one as I could supply would be better than none at all I should never have troubled the World with this if I had had the least Item of Mr. Long 's design but that was perfectly unknown to me till these Papers were wrote out fair for the Press As to the Method I have taken in the answering this Book I have followed the Authour in his own and have given his Titles to each of the Chapters In those Chapters in which he most impugns our Saviour's Divinity I have traced him step by step and given an Answer to every Shadow of an Argument that he brings In other Chapters where there are only oblique stroaks against the Doctrine of the Trinity or which are only Introductory to his main Design I have only summed up the Substance of them and so given an Answer to them in general or at least to so much of them as seemed to make against the Truth of this Doctrine or any other important Truth of our Religion Now it may by some perhaps be thought unfair when I use these Expressions The Authour would insinuate would pretend c. when he does not in express Terms assert that thing in his Book But it must be considered That it was the Authour's design not to let his Book appear with too Heretical a Face but to lay his Premises so that the Reader should often draw his Consequences for him without his setting them down in express Words This is a Subtilty which is common to all such sort of Writers that dare not speak out their full Minds though by the way I think this Authour has as little minced the matter as any But however I have carefully endeavoured not to pervert his Sense but to take his words in that meaning which any indifferent Reader would think the Author designed they should be understood in If I have any where mist his Meaning 't is thro' Mistake and not thro' Wilfulness And in truth I am not absolutely sure after the greatest Diligence that I have always hit his Sense for he has a peculiar way of Writing different from all the Writers of the age his Periods are long and uneven filled with odd sort of Similes and affected Phrases broken with unnatural Parentheses and almost constant Hyperbatons which to be sure will occasion Obscurity in his Book so that if I have mistaken his Meaning upon this account he is to charge that upon himself and not upon his Answerer In short I have performed this Task with all the fairness I could with a design not to triumph over my Adversary but to evince the Truth to vindicate the Honour of my Blessed Saviour which was here so highly calumniated and to assert the Doctrine of the Holy undivided Trinity into the belief of which I was baptized and in which I hope by God's grace to die THE CONTENTS OF THE ANSWER to the PREFACE THE Doctrine of the Trinity could give no incouragement to Mahometanism The true Reasons of the great prevailing of Mahomet's Religion Animadversion upon the Authour's mistake about the establishment of Image-worship Vpon his saying Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith The Heterodox greater furtherers of Mahometanism than the Orthodox That the belief of the Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion That the requiring a belief of this Doctrine does not suppose unlearned Men to understand all the disputes about it The Socinian Doctrines much fuller of niceties than the Orthodox CHAP. I. Necessary to be believed and necessary to Salvation not the same The chief Rules of Christianity not easily discernible by the light of nature by instance of Tully and Aristotle Doctrine of the Trinity not contrary to the fewness of Christian Precepts How all the Gospel is Faith and Repentance CHAP. II. That we are justified by Faith alone proved by Scripture Antiquity c. This Faith ought to be Orthodox in all fundamentals The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as to justify Men by it CHAP. III. What natural Faith is Faith under the Gospel is an inspired habit or grace proved by Scripture Antiquity c. The Faith of Abraham and the
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
pretty reasons why the Latin Bishops were more easily lead by the Bishop of Rome than the Greeks were he supposing their Zeal for the Orthodox Doctrine to be only in compliance with that Bishop which are First by reason of the Greatness of his City and Secondly the Smallness of their Understandings I believe he brought in this Great and Small rather for a Witticism than a Reason But why should they be lead by the Greatness of his City Men are wont to be jealous of every over-grown Power and are sooner apt to oppose than assist it But why should not the Bishop of Constantinople by the same rule have as many always at his command And why should not poor Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria a mighty City too draw as many of his Neighbours of his side But the Authour is afraid that this Argument from the Greatness of the City wo'n't do much and therefore he don't much insist upon it but that from the Smallness of the Latin Bishops Understandings he thinks is a good one and this he endeavours to back with some proof viz with a Story of the Latin Bishops not apprehending a captious Question which was put in the Council of Ariminum Now every one knows how easie it is for designing Knavery to impose upon well-meaning Honesty A little Subtilty with a great deal of Dishonesty will over-reach a great number of wise and honest Men. Several of these tricks all that have read this History know were used in this very Council The Question was put whether they believed in Homo-ousium or in Christ If the Orthodox had said they believed in Homo-ousium the Arians would have scoffed at them for believing only in a word And when they said they believed in Christ and not in Homo-ousium they pretended they had given up their cause by discharging the Homo-ousium Now 't is but too frequent to find in many great Assemblies that the Espousers of the true side are cheated out of their Voices by the fraudulent putting of the Question and that possibly might be the case here But besides there was another reason for their then refusing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Hereticks had gotten a sense of the word which favoured their Heresy so that the Fathers did not reject the word but only their sense of it This long and mischievous Controversy as he calls it he says was at last setled by Theodosius which according to his compute in his last Paragraph was as he expresses it after a hundred and fifty years strugling But I am afraid he is a little out of his Chronology again for he is mistaken but the odd hundred years or thereabouts For set the contest of Arius with Alexander the highest in the year 315 from that time to this Edict of Theodosius in the year 379 are but 64 years which are much short of his 150. But to pass over this what though this Controversy was setled by Theodosius Oh! the Authour has an abundance to say to that in his reflections at last upon his whole relation That this Doctrine now established i. e. the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity was advanced by gross partiality of the most guilty kind and at last imposed by a Novice Emperour upon implicit Faith in two Bishops c. and so on with a long ranting period of some twenty lines But to consider this a little A Novice in Christianity it is true this Emperour was because he received Baptism that year or the year before he published this Edict and yet the Edict might be never the worse for all that but to be sure he sufficiently understood the Christian Religion before he was admitted to Baptism and generally persons that come into the Church at those riper years do take better care to inform themselves before Baptism than others do after it But why must this be an implicit Faith in two Bishops He draws his Consequence from what Sezomen says when he gives an account of this Edict that the Emperour wills that all his subjects should embrace that Religion which Peter the Prince of the Apostles had from the beginning deliver'd to the Romans and which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria held If here be an implicit Faith here is one in three Bishops for Peter the Apostle was as good a Bishop as the other two and the same Faith is said to be of all three But how can he draw from these words that he had an implicit Faith in the other One certainly may use anothers Summary of Faith having found it conformable to God's word without believing implicitly as that other does as well as I can use another Mans Form of Devotion without praying implicitly with him Now the reason why these two names are used by the Emperour is because these Bishops were eminent Professours of the Orthodox Faith amidst the many Heretical Doctrines then in the World and were particular Defenders of it against Arianism If any Man should say he is for believing as the Ancient Fathers believed for continuing in that Faith in which the Athanasius's Cyrils Chrysostoms Nazianzens did that Faith which is still embraced and defended by the great and learned Men of our Church and not for believing as the little heedless Authour of the Naked Gospel does This would not be to believe implicitly on these great Men right or wrong but only to shew 't is more probable that their Faith is better grounded than that of every little trifling Heretick 'T is not worth while to examine all the Declamatory stuff he has brought towards the end of this Chapter for 't is a sure sign that Men want reason when they begin to declaim in such subjects but in truth the Authour has no very good hand at this neither for his strokes will raise no Mens Passions unless their Anger to see their Religion abused by such impudent and withal witless scurrility And indeed 't is enough to raise a Christians Zeal to an unusual Temper to hear him at the end of his false and patch'd relation of this Controversy to plume himself and vaunt as if he had struck the Orthodox Cause for ever dead Behold now the ground says he on which one of our fundamental Articles of Faith is built Behold the justice of that Plea which from such a possession would prescribe to our belief This and what after he says that the Athanasian are to be numbred with the Roman Doctrines is but common-place talk and what may be said upon any thing a Man has a mind to vilify though it be never so sacred The Authour in the close of this Chapter has hooked in some Arguments to make us have a favourable Opinion of the Arians and their Tenets though 't is nothing at all as far as I can see to his design in this Chapter The first is a very good one If Alexander himself the head of the Party could tolerate the Arians we can ill pretend
not Socinianism but 't is Socinianism revers'd 't is a Heterodoxy of his own coining 't is such an odd piece of stupid Heresie as not only his beloved Rationalists but even his ignorant Christians will be ashamed of Secondly As to what he would inferr That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the plainness of the Gospel I have given an Answer already to that when I considered his Preface I shall only add That the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity should I think give greater Credit and Authority to his Laws and ordinary Christians should sooner believe and practise them upon account of their having so admirable and divine an Authour Thirdly As to the Doctrine of the Trinity its being contrary to the fewness of the Christian Doctrines which our Authour would have but Two at most Faith and Repentance I answer 'T is true Faith and Repentance in a large acceptation are the Summ of the Christian Religion and 't is as true That the Doctrine of the Trinity is neither Faith nor Repentance by way of Identical Predication but I hope it may be contained under one of them as a species under its Genus Faith and Repentance in a large sense do take in all Christianity under one are contained the Credenda and under the other the Agenda of our Religion But then what is this to our Authour's purpose If it be any thing it must be this Our Saviour has reduced all his Religion to Faith and Repentance nay sometimes to each of them Ergo the Doctrine of the Trinity ought not to be believed or those that teach that Doctrine preach another Gospel Now how glorious a piece of Logick is this Would not this be as good a Conclusion to all intents and purposes Aristotle tells us That all things in the world are Substance or Accident nay he has reduced both these to Ens therefore there is no such thing as Homo or Brutum or therefore he that says so teaches another Philosophy than Aristotle Certainly every one that understands any thing of his Religion must know That Faith in this general acceptation must take in a firm Belief of all things necessary to Salvation a stedfast Trust and Reliance upon God and an undoubted Hope in all his Promises and an express Assent to all Truths he has revealed in his word c. and that Repentance does contain not only a bare turning from Sin but a constant Practice of all Christian Vertues So that our Authour by this Argument might have as well proved Hope and Charity to be no Christian Graces that there is no such Vertue under the Gospel as Temperance or Chastity because our Saviour has only preached Faith and Repentance CHAP. II. Of Faith in what Sense it justifies OUR Authour in the beginning of this Chapter is of a sudden turned pretty Orthodox and falls a-disputing very shrewdly against the Gnosticks and Antinomians and then he applauds himself mightily in his bringing an Illustration out of Act. 27. 18. of St. Paul's saying to the Centurion Except the Mariners stay in the ship we cannot be saved when he had told them before that there should not be the loss of any Man's life now by this Instance he illustrates the Necessity of good works to Justification and tells us that by this all the Questions about Justification may be solved though he knows not of any one before him which has honoured it with a mention I shall not go about to disturb him in his dispute against the Antinomians though I think 't is a little unseasonable in this Place nor shall I go to rob him of the honour of his Instance nor that place of Scripture of the honour of his Mention for I don't remember I have read it used in this Controversie before though I am sure it has been urged with greater Advantage against the Patrons of absolute Predestination And now one would think the Authour had a mind to have a little Controversie with Luther or Calvin or Bellarmine or to state the Question of Justification among the Moderns but truly he leaves it just as he finds it and runs off to a long Indictment he has drawn up against Faith by which I suppose he would prove its Ineffectualness to Justification Which in short he brings to this Dilemma Either by Faith we believe what is reasonable and so we can't help it and then we have no pretence to a Reward or else we believe without Reason and then we are Fools Ergo We are not justified by Faith One may be apt to wonder to what purpose the Authour should bring in this Question into his Book for one would think at first sight that the decision of it for Works would make more for the Papists than the Anti-trinitarians But yet upon second thoughts one may easily find that the Authour was aware that the usual Solution of this Question by the merits of Christ who is our Righteousness would too far advance his Satisfaction and consequently his Divinity and that for a true Justification by Faith there would be required a full Orthodox Belief in all Fundamentals and therefore this Chapter was I suppose to obviate these Objections Though for ought I can see there is nothing proved against any but the Anti-nomians unless he would have all such that are not Socinians But because the Authour does here endeavour to destroy the Effectualness of this divine Grace the express Attestation of God's word the constant Suffrage of the Church and the Satisfaction too of our Saviour's sufferings I shall give him an Answer by shewing these three things which I suppose will be a compleat Answer to this whole Chapter First That we are justified by Faith alone Secondly That this Faith must be Orthodox in all Fundamentals Thirdly To give a Reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as to justifie men by it First We are justified by Faith alone There cannot be any thing more expresly asserted in Scripture than that we are justified by Faith onely The righteousness of God which is by Faith in Jesus Christ is revealed unto all and upon all that believe Rom. 3. 22. And â— 24. Being justified freely by his Grace And v. 30. It is one God that justifieth the circumcision by Faith and the uncircumcision by Faith And so chap. 5. v. 1. Being justified by Faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ And so Eph. 4. 8. By grace ye are saved through Faith and not of your selves it is the gift of God and not of works least any one should boast And our Church informs us That to be justified by Faith onely is a wholsome Doctrine and full of Comfort Besides this has been the constant Doctrine of Learned Men in the most uncorrupted Ages From which 't is plain That 't is Faith alone that does Justifie and not works yet not Faith exclusive of good Works for a true justifying Faith cannot be without them they do as
Saviour upon so pressing an occasion as their endeavouring to stone him did not assert his right of Divinity but contented himself with this Answer Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Let the Authour make out of this place what he can for his Opinion I am sure this place is as pregnant a proof of our Lord's Divinity as most places in the Bible are and whatever the Authour thinks he does exactly Answer to the Jews Question and tells them plainly he is what they expected the Messias to be the Son of God and very God For First in this place he tells them I and my Father are one v. 30. We two Persons are the same God and 't is plain That the Jews understood that to be his Meaning by their great rage which followed and their Answer to his Question why they should so barbarously use him after so many of his kind and saving Miracles For a good work we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because that thou being a Man makest thy self God And Secondly he gives them a reason why he might claim the title of God without Blasphemy whereas Rulers to whom the word of God came or who had their Power and Authority from him are called Gods in Scripture Psal 2. 1 6. Why has not he whom the Father has sanctified c. a better claim to this Title But besides he farther tells them That he was God in a more peculiar manner than they and in a proper and not metaphorical sense by a personal Union with the Father that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him This cannot be as the Socinians pretend by the Power of God co-operating in Christ for though 't is true that then God would be in him yet he could not be in God And besides to say he is in the Father and the Father in him denotes an Equality in each and his being in the Father in the same manner that the Father is in him And thus much to shew That our Saviour did assert his Divinity and prove it too upon this occasion and so consequently did not only require them to believe in his Word but in his Person also CHAP. VII Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured First Because Impertinent THE First Argument which the Authour uses to prove the Belief of Christ's Divinity to be impertinent is drawn from the Testimony of the Emperour Constantine in his Letter to Alexander and Arius I shall not now dispute whether this Letter in Eusebius be exactly the same which Constantine sent by Hosius into Alexandria though 't is certain many of these things were feigned or interpolated and though the same Letter be in Socrates yet probably he might have it only out of Eusebius and so it still may rely upon his sole Authority who was too great a Friend to the Arian cause to suffer any very favourable opinion to be passed upon its Adversaries But after all the Emperour does not here condemn the Belief of the Orthodox as impertinent but writes chiefly to temper the Hearts of Bishop Alexander and Arius who might be both perhaps something too warm and therefore exhorts them so affectionately to mutual Peace and Reconciliation because of the Quarrels and Schisms and other Evils which this hot and pertinacious Disputing was like to bring into the Church Indeed the Emperour calls the Controversie Arius had raised a little part of a Question and a Question not very necessary for truly the shuffling of Arius and the ambiguous terms he used made the Emperour think 't was only a Controversie about Words But however the Emperour looked upon Arius to be in the wrong as appears by what he says in his Letter to him And you Arius have inconsiderately asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what you ought not so much as to have thought of at first or when you had thought of it you should have passed it over in silence But what after all though the Emperour thought 't was no matter who was in the right Arius or Alexander and though he was of our Authour's Opinion That a right Belief of our Saviour's Divinity signified nothing Yet this is but the single opinion of one who was but a Novice in Christianity and 't is most reasonable to think that Alexander and the other Learned Bishops better understood the Importance of that Question than the Emperour whose Arms and other business of the Empire drew his Thoughts another way But besides afterwards when Constantine was better informed of the mischievous Consequences of the Arian Tenets he quickly alter'd his Sentiments of their Cause and did not then treat them with such soft and favourable Expressions After the conclusion of the Nicene Council in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria he triumphs mightily that Truth has at last prevailed and blesses himself at the Thoughts of the Arian Blasphemies ‖ How great says he and how execrable Contumelies Good God! be thou propitious and merciful to us do they irreligiously and wickedly cast upon our venerable Saviour our Hope and our Life and have not only impudently asserted things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures and our holy Faith but have openly professed That they believe them too In this Epistle he calls Arius impudent Minister of the Devil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in his other Letter to the Bishops and People he says it seems to him requisite that Arius and his Followers should be called Porphyrians that they may be known by their Name whose Manners they follow And there orders if any Book be found of Arius's that it be immediately burned That not only his Execrable Doctrine may be throughly rooted up but that there may be no Monument left to Posterity And now let the Authour make the best he can of Constantine's Judgment and if his other Arguments will support him no better than this his Cause I am afraid will soon come to the ground His next Argument is drawn from the similitude of the Sun That 't is not necessary the Traveller should understand the Dimensions of that Body when he goes by its Light so it is not at all necessary to know what our Saviour is to practise his Commands But this Argument I have already answered in the Fifth Chapter when I shewed what Influence the Belief of our Saviour's Divinity had upon Men's Lives But his Argument which follows is very fine and Philosophical That when he considers the great disproportion between our Earth and so many Worlds which he fansies to be from the innumerable Stars we discover with and without the Telescope each Star being the Sun or
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