not say as much concerning the Trinity I desire to lie under no better an Imputation than our Author has very justly deserv'd of stating other Mens Doctrines falsly and by halves according as the Byas of his present Inclinations turn'd him I could not imagine that ever Prejudice or Ill Nature should so far blind and mislead a Man as to hurry him into wilful Errors against the clearest Convictions both of Sense and Reason Don't we say every Day that there are so many Opinions about the first Origin of Things the Aristotelick Epicurean Christian c. and yet after all we acknowledge that the Christian is the only true Doctrine God forbid that every Man that mentions Opinion after that manner should commit a Sin For if he does I know none that can pronounce themselves Guiltless Our Vindicator after this spends a Page or two in shewing the difference between Faith and Opinion which Paper I think might have been better spared since it is nothing to his purpose For I know no where that the Bishop asserts Opinion to be Faith and if he had he might have been better and more clearly convinc'd of his Error by a few Pages in Bishop Pearson on the Creed than in a dark obscure Author But after all our Vindicator acknowledges that his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine but this term says he is Equivocal and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers But here I must desire to know of our Critick whether ever he met with the Word Doctrine when it was applied in a Divinity Discourse to the Tenets of the Church to be meant of a Philosophical Opinion or when a Man is talking of the Doctrine of the Trinity of the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ he can at the same time refer it to the Opinions of Aristotle Plato Epicurus or Cartesius But it is the Fate of some of our over-grown Criticks to catch at Shadows when they can't lay hold of the Substance and to make themselves appear in their own Colours rather than say nothing In the next Place our Critick finds fault with the Bishop for saying That we believe Points of Doctrine because Pag. 6. that we are persuaded they are revealed to us in Scripture which he says is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private Fancie and contradictory Opinions Now I had thought hitherto that the Scripture had been the adequate Measure and Rule of Faith and that whatsoever we were persuaded was really contain'd in the Scriptures we were oblig'd to believe it And though I am beholden to the universal consent of the Church for my Belief that those Books are the same that were delivered to us from the Apostles and Inspired Pen-men yet I am oblig'd to believe nothing as an Article of Faith but what I am persuaded is revealed in Scripture And certainly 't is much more safe to rely upon the pure Word of God for the Truth of any Doctrine if I am convinc'd that it was Divinely Inspired than as our Author would advise us to depend upon the best Tradition and most unanimous Exposition in the World Since at length I must recur to the Scriptures to examine that Tradition by and am no farther concern'd to believe this than I find it agreeable to the other 'T is true that it is every Man's Duty to submit to the unanimous Sense of the Church rather than to his own private Interpretation but yet it is no farther than he can find that Consent agreeable to the revealed Will of God And if this be not admitted as true Doctrine I can't imagine how we could ever have arriv'd at this Happy Reformation which we are now persuaded was absolutely necessary since it could never have been effected unless every Man has the Liberty of judging the Doctrine he professes by the Testimony of the Scriptures Nor are we to interpret the Scriptures so much by the Judgment of the Fathers and the Church as we try these by their Harmony and Consent with the former And hence it will follow that as we are not obliged to believe any thing which we think is contrary to Scripture so whatsoever we do or ought to believe as an Article of Faith we do it because we are fully and clearly persuaded that it is revealed to us in the Scriptures Else what shall those do who have no notion of Tradition and have no other Rule to guide them but the plain and direct Authority of God's Word And though every Man is not to be his own Interpreter yet he is to judge whether the received Interpretation is agreeable to Scripture or not If Mr. Hill had not here forgot the express Words of the Sixth Article of our Church which tells us That the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation he could not have run out so odly from it or rather against it it was the Foundation upon which the whole Reformation was built If Universal Tradition in the Third Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a good Argument in it self then why was not Universal Tradition in the Thirteenth Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries as good a one If the Authority of a Doctrine lies in the Tradition of it then all Ages must be alike as to this Therefore tho' it is a noble Confirmation of our Doctrine that we can appeal to the first Six Ages of the Church yet if the Corruption that happen'd after the Sixth Century had begun as early as the Third this had not at all chang'd the Nature of things And I believe it will be found a more simple and just way of interpreting Scripture by other places of it more easily and plainly express'd than by any other Method that can be found out for that purpose For if I am to judge of the Sense of Scripture only by Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers I shall be often at a loss and it will be as difficult to me to find out their Sense and meaning as it was that of the Text I was to enquire after But of this enough When I read this Criticism of our Vindicator's I was inclin'd to think he was though perhaps unwittingly set a work by the Papists as I before imagin'd he was by the Socinians to make Divisions and Schisms in the Church And this I take to be Mr. Hill's Orthodox Doctrine But let us carry him to his next Criticism His Lordship Pag. 8. says he is not clear in the point of Incarnation because he tells us that by the Union of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became One Person Now here says our Authour we are not taught whether there were three or any one Person in the Godhead before the
Seneca He introduces them to shew that the Term Person was then used but not to prove that the occasion of its use was not upon account of the Patripassiun or the like Heresies Now I would desire him to produce any Author that asserts that the word Person was used before some Heresie arose that enforc'd the necessity of it For if there is nothing more meant by saying that there are three Different Persons in the Godhead than what the Scripture means by saying that there are Three that bear Witness in Heaven and elswhere to the same purpose there could be no necessity for using the Word Person to explain it unless it was to satisfie and undeceive those who either doubted it or denied the reality of any Personal Distinction And if all Men had believed exactly as the Scripture declares it self I may well suppose that the Term Person might not have been made use of at least there would have been no necessity for it to this very Day And though those Hereticks that denied any Personal Distinction in the Godhead denied the received Doctrine of the Church yet does it not follow as our Author would persuade us that the Word Person was before used since as was already said what the Scripture has revealed to us concerning that sacred Mystery imports as much as what we mean by a Personal Distinction From whence it follows that since there was no occasion for the use of it 't is very probable that Term was not till some Heresies broke out introduc't into the Church and if so our Vindicator's and not his Lordship's Insinuation is false and injurious Tertullian indeed charges some with denying the Eternal Word to be a Substantial Real Person But this is only an interpretation of the Scripture or seems design'd to shew in what Sense he understands it And if we should grant that he was not the first that used it yet it will not follow but that there were Hereticks before that denied any distinction in the Godhead which might give occasion for the first use of it I deny not that the Word Person was used regularly in the Church or that it is very expressive of the Sense of the Scripture and very agreeable to it but only that it does not appear that it was made use of before some Heresies or Disputes arose about the Meaning of those Places of Scripture which made the use of it seem absolutely necessary And this and no other seems to be his Lordship's plain meaning But had his Lordship shewn any dislike to the use of it which I don't any where find in his whole Discourse the least reason to suspect yet I find no less an Author than St. Hierom cited by a late great Prelate who always used that Word with a great deal of Approbation and Esteem as desiring in some of his Writings to be excus'd mentioning it Though I know this is nothing to the Purpose yet I wonder our Author would let him escape without some Mark of Defamation as seeming to have a greater dislike to that Term than the Bishop has any where exprest and therefore a fitter Subject to vent his Passion against But to go on In his next Paragraph he comes to Pag. 15. shew us that his Surmises against his Lordship's Integrity are well grounded by his Lordship's Explanation of the Term Person For by Person saith his Lordship is only meant that every one of the Blessed Three has a peculiar Distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other Two Here says our Author it is plain That by using the Term Three so often without adding Person he shuns the Word as much as he dares at present to do and assigns a Distinction which is not any way Personal Now as to his shunning the Word Person I think there is no reason to suspect when he had used it but in the same Sentence that our Author finds fault with and I may offer to say that he could not there have properly used it oftner But I suppose our Author would have had his Lordship say that by there being Three Persons in the Godhead is to be understood that those Persons are Three For otherwise how his Lordship's Explanation is Faulty I can't see And if his Lordship dares not make it his own or allow it for proper as the Vindicator maliciously insinuates yet there are others that dare Without doubt as our Author would have it 't is the best Definition in the World of Ens to say it is Ens and that an Individuum is an Individuum How we can otherwise explain there being Three Persons in the Godhead I can't imagine but by saying they are really distinct from each other And our Author 's fine turn of three Tobacco Pipes may as well refer to the Apostle's saying there are Three that bear witness in Heaven as to any thing his Lordship has said and then he might have added Blasphemy to his Nonsense Yes but says our Author his Lordship should have added in his Definition of the Term Person the Words of Father Son and Holy Ghost Now I can tell our Author that this Answer is to be made to those who enquire who are the Three that constitute the Godhead and not to what we mean by Person when we apply it to them as such For when we consider them as Persons there is no necessity that we should in the same Breath explain the Relation they bear to each other And though they are Three Persons as being Father Son and Holy Ghost yet that would be no direct Answer to the Question What we mean by Person when we apply it to the Blessed Three And if our Vindicator had truly considered this he might have stopt his Fury for a Page or two together When I first read this I thought it might be the slip of an angry hasty Pen but when I considered it was of the same strain with the rest of the Book a great deal said upon nothing I concluded that it must proceed either from gross Ignorance or inveterate Malice I suspect something more than should be I am sure the whole Foundation is rotten and more than tacitely imports a Renunciation of all Charity the greatest Pag. 17. Branch of our Christianity In his next Paragraph he comes to give up the Cause for he tells us that by the Bishop's calling them the Blessed Three he means as much as we do by Persons because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to every of the Three must mean the same as we do by Person and if so the only quarrel is about Words and not the Sense of the thing and I know no reason why his Lordship should be censured for not mentioning Person in every Line when every where he means the same as we do by it and has exprest himself in the same Terms as the Scripture has done And I much wonder why Mr. Hill did not
catechize the Apostle for not using the Word Person as he very ridiculously exposes himself since there is as much reason for the one as the other But besides his Lordship has several times mentioned Person in relation to the Trinity which none of the Apostles or Evangelists have ever done But had he not done it yet the Reason which he gives in answer to his Socinian Adversary may be sufficient to excuse it And therefore I shall here beg leave to transcribe those Words When Christ commanded all to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Pag. 99 100. Son and Holy Ghost he plainly mentioned Three if therefore I to adhere to Scripture Terms had avoided the frequent use of any other Word but the Three I thought how much soever this might offend others who might apprehend that I seem'd to avoid mentioning of Trinity or Persons which yet I shewed flowed from no dislike of those Words but meerly that I might stick more exactly to Scripture Terms yet I had no reason to think that Men of the other side would have found such Fault with this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Three of whom I discourse so instead of repeating these Words at every time I shorten'd it by saying the Blessed Three Now it is a strain particular to our Author who I suppose had it from the Socinian Writer to enlarge on this But now let us look into our Author and see if he is not guilty of as great Faults or Heresies as those which he falsly objects against the Bishop His Lordship's Pag. 22 23. Words which he censures are these The Second of this Blessed Three was united to a perfect Man that is according to our Author 's own Interpretation the Second Person in the Holy Trinity took our Flesh which directly follows from his Criticism upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of the Messias who was both God and Man This he condemns as false Doctrine because it denies the Personality of Christ to be Eternal but if this be false Doctrine I deny it too For I neither acknowledge or believe that Christ who was God and Man was Eternal but only the Second Person in the Trinity who in the fulness of time took our Flesh and by that Union became Christ our Anointed High Priest and the Messias that was to come into the World And I dare positively affirm that from this Union resulted the Personality of Christ that is the Messias though our Vindicator of the Doctrine of the Church and the Ancient Fathers does positively deny it His Words are these That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted Pag. 23. from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality Now I would desire to know whether this is the Doctrine of our Church if not 't is Heresie and destroys the reality of the Incarnation The Athanasian Creed which we profess to adhere to makes Personality to consist in the Vnion of God and Man As thus Who although he be God and Man perfect God and perfect Man God of the Substance of the Father and Man of the Substance of his Mother yet he is not two but one Christ And thus it is explained For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh if separated and taken apart make two distinct Substances yet as they are united are but one Man or Person so that is after the same manner God and Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting which takes in the whole 〈…〉 Man is one Christ And although he was God the Second Person from all Eternity yet before he took the Manhood into God he could not be the Person Christ Jesus or the Messias Our Author very confidently and erroneously affirms that the assumption of the Humane Nature to the Divine contributed nothing of Personality to the Messias But certainly the Athanasian Creed if Words were design'd to express the Sense of a thing teach the directly contrary Doctrine For why should it say that God and Man is one Christ if it did not mean that the compleat Person of Christ resulted from that union I would ask our Author whether the Man Christ Jesus be a Person or not If he be whether it is only as he is God or Man or as he is both If he is only as he is God what becomes of the Man and of the Substance which he had of his Mother For if it does not enter into the Personality it is nothing but an accident that might be destroyed at Pleasure and yet the Messias that is perfect God and perfect Man should remain the same Person still Now I wonder with what Confidence a Man that pretends to vindicate the Ancient Doctrine of the Church to censure others for Heresle and to refer his Vindications to the Sense and Judgment of the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England the two famous Vniversities and the next Session of Convocation should deny an Ancient Doctrine of the Church the direct Sense of the great and most Orthodox Athanasius which the Creed so called is supposed to be the Summ of and the present Faith and Persuasion of our own Church of England which God grant may long stand fixt and immovable in the Simplicity and Purity of its Primitive Doctrine against all false Pretenders to Truth and all uncharitable Censurers of its Faith But we have not yet done with his Errors In the Pag. 23. same Paragraph he tells us That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality for to this the Humane Nature was assumed or pre-existent If the Humane Nature was assumed to Christ then he was Christ that is the Messias before he was Incarnate which is unintelligible What he means by the Humane Nature's being pre-existent to the Personality or Person of Christ I can't find If he believes that the Humane Nature of Christ did exist before it was united to the Godhead I presume 't is downright Heresie for that makes them two distinct Persons at least it makes him the Messias before the union of both Natures But besides as soon as Christ was born he was stiled Christ the Lord by way of Eminence to shew that he was then truly God and that he was Christ our Saviour only by that Union of both Natures in him and not before And therefore I presume that the Humane Nature did not pre-exist before he was one altogether not by confusion of Substance but by unity of Person Whatever he means by this Term I can find nothing but down-right Absurdity and Contradiction in it Now I was much wondring how our Author came to light upon this Notion That nothing of the Personality of Christ resulted from the Humane Nature But finding by the Thread of his Discourse that he had read somewhere that when two