〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter but otherways they decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius that we may not through want of words call God under three Names but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what other use do we desire to make of them than this Indeed we will allow the Doctor that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done or more His good Council of Sirmium published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God and the famous Council of Ariminum did the like Next he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rendring it Substance which bears too great a Cognation with matter But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically when we know 't is used so as we do when it is used properly so that 't is a silly exception against this word to say it is Metaphorical for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically ten times as many words as we have would not serve us But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is all the harm that is done then Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike and therefore they must have the same signification Aquinas defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being by which it is by its self and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject and Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that subsists by its self which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence and so Suidas to the same purpose So that if the Latins and the Greeks understand the same thing as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia So again I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona if the same thing be understood by both Words as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand Indeed the Latins at first did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it because they generally translated that word by Substantia who by the scantiness of their Language could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance and not by Persona or Substantia and therefore to assert three Hypostasis was the same with them as to make three Gods Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word did occasion some contention for a while till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 and then they came to a right understanding and ever after both Latins and Greeks used the word alike Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis as Acacius and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople and the Eusebians in the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia but that I hope will be no prejudice against it for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery we only ought to take care to understand and them aright which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity which because he will not have it be mysterious he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature for he says the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth There are Three Persons that bear witness c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration but whatever we may expect from him hereafter since this wonderful Illumination I am sure what he has given us in this Chapter is far enough from it He tells us That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind Reason and Power the Reason or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind the Father both which are imperfect unless perfected by Power or Action which is the holy-Holy-Ghost Now is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable both to the Holy Scripture and the Church of England is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame which he so boasts of They are old Materials indeed as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp but neither older nor newer than their Heresies For I pray what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's The Sabellians taught That the Father Son and Holy-Ghost were the same so that there were Three Names in One Person and as in a Man there is Body Soul and Spirit or Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Body is as it were the Father the Soul the Son and that which is the Spirit in Man is the holy-Holy-Ghost in the Deity All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity is That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture Nay the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal for Body Soul and Spirit are more distinct than Mind Reason and Operation So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism as he pretends he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie But after all what can we make of our Author's Trinity which any Vnitarian will not agree to Mind Reason and Action why are not all these in every Man and every rational Being as well as in God and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings Besides Mind Reason and Energy or Action are but divers Modus of the same thing Mind is the rational Principle simply considered Reason is the same Soul considered Discursive or Reasoning and Action or Energy is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence There every Person is by a proper personal difference distinguished from
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
failed in the former for if I mistake not his Confidence has generally the transcendent of his Sincerity which is the common fate of all Hereticks His Queries are these 1. What was that Gospel which our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to be believed 2. What alterations or additions have after Ages made in it 3. What Advantage or Damage hath thereupon ensued Now as to these Queries I am willing to follow him in the search of them and I pray God to give him grace to be better resolved in them hereafter than he was or at least would be thought to be when he was writing this Book And so I shall take my leave of his Preface AN ANSWER TO THE Naked Gospel CHAP. I. What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to Salvation HERE the Authour shews a little Sophistry whilst in his Query at first he says necessary to be believed but in his transcribing it in the Front of this Chapter he says necessary to Salvation The first expression he uses as the more soft to make his Queries as they lie together seem more reasonable the second he makes use of as the more harsh thereby to insinuate the uncharitableness of the Orthodox who make a right Belief of the Trinity necessary to Salvation Now though we will not quarrel with the Authour about this change of his Terms which is never to be allowed in fair Disputes especially in the Question it self which is to be discussed yet we must allow a great deal of Difference between a thing 's being necessary to be believed and being necessary to Salvation A thing may be necessary to be believed when it is a certain Truth plainly revealed in Scripture so that a man cannot in all points believe aright without the belief of that too and the belief of that Point is necessarily required to make him a full compleat Orthodox Believer but then a thing is necessary for Salvation when it is so of the very Fundamentals of Religion that the Scripture does not allow of Salvation without the belief of this but whether the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity be of this necessity is another dispute only from hence it appears That necessity of believing and necessity in order to Salvation are not equivalent Expressions and which I am persuaded the Authour did not use without design The Authour in the beginning of this Chapter gives an account of the excellence of the Christian Religion and that it was propagated by our Saviour to deliver us from the discipline of the Ceremonial Law and to exalt natural Religion to its utmost perfection and so far right Then he goes farther to tell us that its Doctrines were the same which were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant minds that every one without any Instructer might read and understand And so with this notion of the Christian Religion in his head and this Test as he calls it in his hand very champion-like as he safely may 〈…〉 1. What was the Gospel which our Saviour and his Apostles preached And here our Authour to make short work at first dash reduces the Doctrines to Two Faith and Repentance and then to Faith and no Repentance and then again to Repentance and no Faith he might as well have rung the changes once more and have reduced it to no Faith and no Repentance and then he had cut the Gospel short enough Now from all this he would make us believe That the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity which the Orthodox require to be believed of good Christians is contrary to what our Saviour required of his Followers Now here are Three things which lack a little animadversion First His saying that the Doctrines of Christianity were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant Men's minds that every one without any â—â—structor might read and understand them Secondly That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to this Plainness Thirdly That this Doctrine is contrary to the sewness of the Christian Precepts As to his First assertion I will readily acquit our Authour of Socinianism as to this point for the Gentlemen of that persuasion are generally so civil to our Saviour notwithstanding their depriving him of his Divinity as to allow him to be a distinct Legislator from Moses not only to have rectified and improved the old Law but to have given new precepts and to have advanced Morality to that height and perfection which it could never have come up to without such Revelation But our Authour here would have our Blessed Saviour who himself tells us that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the Law and to compleat it and of whose Doctrines the Apostles give the great Eulogiums of a spiritual Law and a perfect Law only to have told the World something which they knew well enough before and which any Ignorant Man in our Author's phrase could understand without an Instructor Who the Authour calls ignorant Men I know not I am sure some Men of the greatest natural Knowledge have not been able by the light of Nature to come up to the Knowledge of some of those Laws which our Saviour does recommend in his Sermon upon the Mount The Jews who one would think should be most knowing in these Truths as having the assistance of so many particular Revelations yet they lived in opinions contrary to them all as appears by the whole tenor of that Discourse of our Saviour and even the most Learned of the Heathen were far from embracing the generality of them 'T would be too long here to shew the great defect of the Heathen Philosophy in respect of this admirable Lecture of our Saviour But to let our Authour know how far ignorant Men are from coming up by the pure light of reason to the Knowledge of these Laws let him consider how much Aristotle and Cicera two Men of the greatest strength of natural Reason perhaps that ever were in the world how much I say these great men were mistaken in the Rules of Charity which our Blessed Saviour does deliver He commands us to love our enemies to do good to them that hate us Matth. 5. 44. But Aristotle tells us that That man is void of all sense and pain that though he does forbear to be angry does not seek revenge But 't is the part of a Slave being contumeliously used to bear it So Cicero among the rights of Nature places Revenge by which says he we propel an Injury or an Affront And again in one of his Epistles to Atticus he shews his Prectice as well as his Opinion I hate the man and I will hate him and I wish I could be revenged of him Now I suppose Cicero and Aristotle were none of the most ignorant men and if they could not search out these Truths without an Instructor I cannot imagine how our Authour 's ignorant Men should So that in short this opinion of our Authour 's is
plainly enough described there but if the Authour wo'n't see them the Doctor can't find him Eyes and description too But let us see how the Authour has mended the matter in his handling the point But instead of giving us an enumeration of the particulars he has given us only some marks and qualifications of things to be believed which too if he had done it fairly enough would have been pretty well 1. And now the first qualification he makes for matters of Faith is That they be easily understood by the meanest capacity I hope the Authour does not mean that Men must understand every thing as far as they believe them and to believe nothing but what they have a perfect knowledge of for this would be to exclude all Faith out of the World and to make Men Scepticks in every thing but of which they had demonstrative Science If he means that there are no Fundamental Truths to be believed but what the meanest capacity can adequately comprehend the express modus of them this I am sure is more than ever he will be able to make out however he may attempt it As for what he brings of the poor having the Gospel preached unto them and that the light of the Gospel cannot be hid but to those whose eyes are blinded and of the simplicity which is in Christ these Texts the Authour has foisted in to no purpose and contrary to their intent and meaning for they are spoke only to shew that the Christian Religion did not consist in Pharisaical Glosses or deep Philosophical niceties knowable only by a few learned Men but in plain truths which any one of a mean capacity might perceive as far as was requisite for his Salvation And one of these I have shewn the Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be as to the belief of its existence in the Answer to the Preface But the Authour will have the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 10. 9. to judge it a great defect of Faith if there were any difficulty in it For my part I see nothing like such a judgment in this place of the Apostle that it argues a defect of Faith to have the matter of it difficult to believe Nay the reasoning of the Apostle there seems to be grounded upon the contrary to this If thou shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Christ from the dead thou shalt be saved That is if thou shalt believe such a wonderful thing as Christ's Resurrection which is so strange and difficult to be believed by all carnal Men thou shalt be saved But why should difficulty make a defect of Faith it has been generally looked upon as a great increase and exaltation of Faith when the matter has been hard to believe as in Abraham who believed against hope and whose Faith for this very reason the Authour did extraordinarily celebrate a Chapter or two before however he may have forgot himself now The calling of the Gentiles indeed he allows to be something of a Mystery and difficult to believe under the Gospel but he is very positive that in no other word of Scripture we meet the least intimation that Faith hath any hard task for the understanding to perform But I thought there might have been some difficulty in the belief of the Gospel it self by reason of our Saviour's calling his Religion a Yoke wherein Mens Carnal Reasons were to be subjugated as well as their Affections by his being set for the fall of many by reason that the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews and to the Greeks foolishness c. all which plainly shews there is at least some intimation of a difficulty for Faith under the Gospel 2. His second Qualification is That matter of Faith must be the express word of God This rule of the Authour holds well enough yea so well that I am afraid he will never stand by it when it comes to the Issue For if the Socinians or other Opposers of Christ's Divinity would once come to be determined by express Texts of Scripture that controversy would quickly be at an end For there are so many express Texts against them that we cannot desire more and these they will own are express as to the word and letter but then are forced to put false and strained Interpretations upon them to make them look another way For our Saviour is expresly called God Joh. 1. 1. The word was God Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Thomas calls him my Lord and my God So Heb. 1. 8. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever So the Divine Attributes are ascribed to him Omnipresence Joh. 14. 23. Matth. 28. 20. and 18. 20. Omnipotence Phil. 3. 21. Rev. 1. 8. Immutability Heb. 1. 11 12. Omniscience Joh. 21. 17. Joh. 11. 25. Rev. 11. 23. So likewise the Holy Ghost is called expresly God Act. 5. 4. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost thou hast not lied unto men but unto God v. 4. So are the Divine Attributes ascribed unto him As Omnipresence Psal 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. Eternity 1 Cor. 11. 10. Joh. 15. 26. Omniscience 1 Cor. 11. Omnipotence Luk. 11. 20. Luk. 1. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 11. These are not the tenth part of the places in Scriture which may be alledged for the proof of the Trinity besides that express one to prove a Trinity in Unity 1 John 5. 7. though without that there is enough to establish this Doctrine in the minds of all unprejudiced Men. And to see what work the Socinians make to invalidate these proofs what jejune and foolish interpretations they pass upon them so contrary oftentimes to the whole design and tenour of the Authours this would make any one think that they had taken up a Paradox to defend and were resolved to say any thing to maintain it rather than to be perfectly silent Well! but what if the relation between the written word and the rational consequence be so remote that none but a skilful Herald can drive its Pedigree Why this is not the case of the Doctrine of the Trinity for all the Authour's hast For first this is plainly asserted in that famous place of St. John 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Authority of this Text is good for all our Adversaries appeal to some Manuscripts to the contrary and we have St. Cyprian to vouch for it who is older than any Manuscripts they can pretend to But secondly supposing this Text was wanting in Scripture the Doctrine of the Trinity is plain enough for all that We have express assertion there that each of the three Persons are God by the places for instance we just now alledged and we are likewise assured as well from natural reason as from Scripture that God is but one Hear O Israel thy God is but one God Deut. 6. 9. Now any Man without any great skill in Heraldry or Logick