MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 93-81219- MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Titie 17, United States Code - concerns the malting of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order If, In Its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: EDWARDS, JONATHAN TITLE: EXPOSITION GIVEN BY MY LORD BISHOP... PLACE: LONDON DA TE: 1702 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT DIDLIOCR APHIC MTrRQFORM TARCFT Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record !' Restrictions on Use: y -H H^fm y Edwards, Jonathan, 1629-1712. Exposition given by iny lord bishop of Sarum of the second article of our religion examined. London, 1702. 96 p. 0. No 3 of a vol of pamphlets. 1UU7()9 O TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA DAfE FILMED:_i^5y:^:l__ _ _ INITIALS ^//9m r 1 which Jm mSn bV , Jk * "H"^ ">■"' ^ft" ""<» his wx"r flj.^^ ^/vt"^ rXchr"'7 to faB Clergy an^fi„cePobhfl,ei of wh,ch thifp r"^* we are now upon, is but a TiaifcrioT ,£ r '^\P°''"°". traded where he tetls „=,?,'?' ?'°'"'"'''^' '°"- ■ debate amom the 7/.mr r>,A. i '''''''i.^oauym htm could bearno M"i A Xj .fete .f ci" !"'"" " '^■ courfe p. 40. -^ ■' ""■'• "J ''°* "/"« ■?«» «, Dif- re4"f'f t'hSieawhill,!"'' '"""^ other paffages wither^ rurpnLaKS."?ofi':fdT"L""''' "^ "^^^' higheft importance ddivS/l ,1, t """"' "f *= wfichas to^heftS*r^f 'Jf 3°l>; '"t ">"»'"''' grounded upon them are „T1 ' ^ ^ i^" *' "Z""^' holy Religion "n eeneral , ;i1^ f?'T "°requence to our no^ofotSrSt^-l"! Sc'nS?*""'^ '° '^^ ""^ Divi„eVre4e'^a\"taSo:; °a'S,^HS'" If f^^, hitherto thonaht- «■« k« »u ■ ca"e«;Wrf, my^eho- God. For fn hrSr^o .V^ r'"?"^'^"^ "^™^ °f vertue of the fame^ Divbe pJefLe t^^^^ uf^' ^^'^ ^^ J- thought Divine wor Jp'tSght Wfu^b^e^^^^^^^^^ t?: Creature^ ^ [3] Creature, and that accordingly they did Worjbip the aoud of Glory upon that account. Thus in the expofition, a few lines after thofe before mentioned, p. 49. he tells us, thatfucb an Inbabttatton of God m a Creature, by which that Creature wat not only called God^ but that adoration was due to it upon that account y rvas a notion that could not have fcandali^ed the fervsy &c. Zdlyy That this great Article of our Religion concerning the Incarnation of our Saviour, whereby the Word or Son of Godtsjatd to be made very Man j when it was firft publifhed was at that time delivered and underftood in that fenfe, viz. That the Eternal word which atfirfi dwelt in the Cloud of Glory, afterwards dwelt in the Man Chrift Jefus j and that therefore the name and worlhip of God might be attributed to him without the imputation of Idolatry. The Opinions which aregronnded upon thefe fuppofiti- ons, and which neceflarily flow from them are, i//, that the name of GW may be juftly afcribed to a Creature, zdly^ Thzt a Creature may be the lawflil objed of ^ligious adora- tton. idly. That a Local prelence and indwelling of the God- had in Chrift, without a proper and eflential union, was fufficient to entitle the Man Chrift Jefus, to the name and worlhip of God. And indeed in this manner did Nejloriusy whom the Bifhop in this Chapter endeavours to defend, lot in down right termes indeed, but yet in fuch a way as we can eafily collet his meaning j explain this Article, which was looked upon to be fo dangerous a ftate of this matter, that he was for that Cenfured and Depofed by the id General Council held at Ephefus. I (hall fpeak of thefe thing^s in their order, yet fo, as to confider jointly the matters of faft and the Opinions grounded upon them, without a particular difcuffion of them feparately from each other. Firft then it is faid, that the Cloud of Glory was called God and Jehovah. This is roundly affirmed by his Lordfhip but without any good ground from Scripture. It is true God is A 2 (aid <>.'. t?!F7f < l - IWi I I -i - i ^ i ;i! I 1 1 [ 4- ] fsLid to dwell between the Cherubims^ to be in his Tempk^ to ap^ pear in the Cloudy to dejcend in the Cloudy tojpeakjaut oj the Cloud : but that ever the Cloud it felf was called God^ or Jehovah^ is affirmed confidently but without warrant. His Lord- fhip indeed hath the Socinians for his partners in this affir- mation, who to weaken the force of that Argument for the Divinity of our Saviour, taken from the Name of God and Jehovah given to him, tell us that this Name was given to the Jngels in the old Teftament as his Legats and Reprc- fentatives. And not only fo, but if Enjedtnus and Wol^o- gen. be to be credited, to feveral inanimate things as well as perfons, upon the account of their relation to God, or his prefence with them. Such as were the ArJ^ofthe Covenant^ the Temple^ the City ofjerujalem^ feveral Altars which were erciSted to his Honour and called by his Name. But all this we deny ; and fay that the Name of G(?// was never abfolutely given to any Creature, without fome other words joined with it in the fame period, which plainly qua- lify and reftrain the meaning of it. But that the word Je* hovah never was given to any Creature, it being the Name which God appropriated to himfelf, and by which he would diftinguifii himfelf from all both Creatures and Idols, Efay. ^2. i. The Lord that is my Name^ and my Glory ^ which cannot be feparated from it, rvill I not give to another. Jer. i6. 21. They pall kriorv that my Name is the Lord^ or Jehovah. See ch. 33. V. 2. ch. 44 V. 26. This Name is fo peculiar to him that it is ablblutely incommunicable to anv Creature, upon the account of any relation, prefence, inhabitation or any other confideration whatfoever. And as to the fenfe of the Jews in this matter, Maimonides fhall fpeak in the name of them all. Nomen Jehovah efi nomen appropriatum Creator i aU tijfimo. l^liqua tpjius nomina dicuntur aqutvoce e? cum mixtiira. Sed htc nulla efi aquivocatio neque mixtura^ idefl^ nihil eft quod commune fit Deo ^ Creatures tn hoc nomme. Non efi duhium qutn hoc nomen gloriofum eft nomen tllud^ in quo non eft par^ ticipatia f '%. I • [r] ticipatio inter Creator em ^ aliquid aliud. More Nevoch. p. i Cap. 60. The (econd thing that is here affirmed is, that by ver- tue of this Divine prefence beforementioned, a Creature may be the objedJ: of Religious worfliip. And particular- ly that the Jews rvent up to the Temple^ not only to vporfijtp God as dwelling in the Cloud of Glory ; but did a(9:ually worjhip the Cloud it felf becaufe of Gods refting upon itj vid. Difcourfe p. 40. That the Jews ever did thus, is diredly contrary to their known and avowed Principles, among whom the Znity of the Godheady and as a confequence of that, the %)nttyy if I maj fb fay, of worjhip that belongs to him, is the firft and fundamental principle of their whole Religion. God was to be the fole objed: of their adoration, iQ which they knew he would admit of no Partners upon any pretence whatfoe- ver. The defighn of their whole Religion being, as the Bifhop himfelf acknowledges, in his Difc. p. 40. To drive all Idolatry out of the World^ either the worjhiping of other Gods befides the true J or the worjfjiping of the true God under any bodily re^ prefentation : and we may add, as we fhall prove by and by, of any Creature, by vertue of any pretended or real pre- fence and inhabitation : It is certain they could pay no Di- vine worfhip either to the Temple^ or Ark^^ or Cherubims^ or Cloud'y but only to him that dwelt in the Temple^ fat between the Cherubims^Jpake to them out of the Cloudy which was a vifi- ble Symbol of his prefence, but did not fhare in that Glory which he peculiarly referved for himfelf, and would not part with it to any other thing or perfbn whatlbever. This was the belief and pradtice of the y^a^j in purfu- ance of this grand Principle, and they could do no other- wife while they ad:ed confiflently with it. And this was their cafe with reference to the Temple^ and Ar^ and Cloudj if we believe Bifliop Stillingflcety who affirms, and fays he Jiath Scripture and Fathers to abet him in that affirmation, viz. That the Jews only directed their worjhip towards the place Tfhert xjr:.-- N. I Holy ,f Holies, but had no intVntSfl ^ -^ ''T'^' '-^^ or rW..., or any th^gS be/IdrCnd'^ "f"'' f< revive the Herefies ofSii IS- /2^''°^^ \^° attempt to thers -erejamychargelTiS'^^^^^^^ Fa- ftiping a fr^fltor^ - for fnch r h^ 'f ^^^'^'^V ■ the firft for wor- tho a Divine one : -Vhe latter /'T ".^^°""fed our Savior, the notion of Idok?i?as it wi =WI '^°'"§' ^""""^^y ^l^ers force of thofe. Arguments, which the pi ''"[""S "^^ Divines make ufe Sf, to Drove ih^ ?k ^^""^ ^"'^ ^o^^ern gujity of that impious p?aS'^''^'''"'""°"^^ P^^^o"' great indignation rSdThe L^t. T^' f"''* ^^^^ '^'th more plaulible reafon of th^r i'''''"^ J^^^ogy, and gave a and and animated them. This was the opinion of Pythazorat. Varro and the Stoich, as may be feen in Cicero de Natura Deorum hb. a. LaUant. m his 2d. Book of Inftit, St. Aufitn fe Ctv.Det hb.4. cap.} 2. whofe opinion is exprefled by Ftrzil in thefeknown verfes: yfirt^/d?. (J. t;.724. ^ Spiritus intus alit, totofque infufa per artns Mens agitat mohm, (3 magno fe corpore mifcet. The Jpology therefore they made for themfelves to take oft the charge of Idolatry was, that they thought It unreafonable to be accufed of thofe follies and fa- bles which were invented by the Poets, and believed by Je vulgar but difowned by them. 'Tis true they did wor- Ihip the whole world and the feveral parts of it, but this they did , not for the fake of the Body , but chiefly of the Soul which anmiated it, which they faid was God. And in Ihort, that they principally direded their veneration to that divine Spirit, which quickned and filled the Univerfe. And thofe among them who paid divine honors to artificial as well as natural parts of the World, I meane Iinates , made life of this Excufc, as St. Jufim tells us, in Pjalm 113. Non hoc vi/iUile colo, fed hoc quod mvifibiltter habitat. Now if we enquire what anfwers the Fathers made to thefe plaufible pretences of the Pagans j we fliall find that they juftfied their charge, not onely by denying and re- futing the ground upon which they proceeded, vi%. that there was no fuch aquation or animation of the Univerfe by a divine Spirit, as they imagined, and which they called I c '."PP^'fi^g " to be true, they infifted upon this as the fundamental principle of divine worlhip in the Chri- Itian religion, that adoration is to be gtven to God onely; that the maker of the world onely is to be mrjhipped : that nothing elje can be the obje^ of that worjhip either with the Jupretne Codj or TPttbout htm. Numerous citations are to be found in feyeral If [ 8 ] ^rf'^llT T'T' *'^;° T ""^'^^ P^^^« to this pur. pole. I fhaU choofe to refer the Reader onely to one and ttZl%'f'"^^''' 7^° ^? '^' ^-^^ before mSo^ed CO. ceining Idolatry, produces feveral paffages out of them which the Reader may confult at his leafure. ' htionZrlTl'^ rT'- '''^- ^"'"^^ ^''J'""'^ inhabitation, re. mtontoGod, beafufficientgroundforworlhip, as the Pa- i^iy cSnnin' IS '■^fif'"'-^ '""^"'^ ?^ Temple/ then let tfonld Book o ^"^^^^^^^ "P°" '^'^ °^"^«" ^" ^h^ foremen- fan of the world fuppofing God to hi the foul of tt! asXtifcv bS?of1Sfn • ^"^-.i"'^^^'^ '^^^'^ pretence aid an£ XJed ?J. '" '^' ''u^'S °^'^'^ ^°'-^hip muft be much !S ' •^'^^•'i '"'°"S the y«P/, and extend it felf as far Son. '' ^^'^ '"°"^ ''^' ^^Sans, to feveral part! of the appea^ed^n 5li/°T'^i"'^ ^t'' /^^- ^^^^ ^" ^^^^h God appeared to Mofes 3 £(;o^. as alfo that pil/ar of fire in whirh way XlSf " ^'^ ^'^^^^V °i' ^^''^^ ^° lead S in thSr -e^ar/^j which wasfanaifyed by Gods orefence S in fi^' vered hi T .^^ V"? ^^''°'' ^°^ ^^'^ «^henc? he deli- IrU^wtlhTrlf"''^' '^y- ^^^ '""ft comprehend the in rSrifk ? '°"'F°"i '° ''^^ ^^"^"^ ^°d with- Mount rSdC^ ^°' ^''r" '^"' ''""^*'^'' ^« ^^^ as the ner Alv tS 4- , was prefent in an extraordinary man- ana elpeciaUy the tnrpard SanBuary, &ikd the Holy of nftief, together /«■ \ [9] together with the Mercy Seat which was Gods Throne placed between the Cherubims and from whence He de- livered his Oracles; thefeas they were ail fandifyed with the fame Divine prefence^ are capable of the fame Divine Tvorjhip. sthljj If this Temple mad^ with hands ^ was fo high- ly honoured, we cannot in reafon or juftice exclude that more perfeU Tabernacle not made with hands ^ Heaven it jelL (fandifyed to fo high a degree by the immediate and glo- rious prefence of God) from pertaking in a more eminent manner of the fame high honour. Laftly, Forafmuch as fbme Learned Men, and particularly Mr. Mead^ from whom others have borrowed that notion, are of opinion, that this Shecinah^ or glorious habitation of God confifts in the attendance of the Holy Jngels^ who are his Royal Retinue and wait upon him wherever he is, who in extraordinary attendances were wont to appear in bright and luminous Bodies^ fuch as was that Cloud of Glory within the Temple and the Pillar of Fire without it s from hence we have, according to the Bifhops Expfition, a clear proof, both in FaB and ^ht^ of the worjhip of Angels y in and among whom God did dwell, when they thus reprefented his pre- tence in thofe 'Radiant and Luminous f^yrms which upon this oc- cafion they affumed. And it is with great probability af- firmed by fbme, that thefe Holy Angels are called his Train with which the Temple was filled in IJaiahs Vifion, If. 6.v.i. idly^ Let us now proceed to Pot)iJb Idolatry^ confifting in the worfhip of Saints, Painted and Carved Images, the Cru- cifix, e^r. The pretence made ufe of by the Papijls to jufti- fy the firft, vi:^. the worfliip of Saints is, that God is in a pecu- liar manner prefent in and with them, not only by a com- munication of his Graces, but likewife by a participation of his Glory now in Heaven, in fuch a manner as exceeds our comprehenfion. Of which Glory the Blefed Virgin in par- ticular hath fo great a fhare, and partakes in fo high a de- gree, as thereby, in their efteem. She is thought to deferve B the -tj.%Jli>>^. [ lo] the name of a Goddefs. And indeed I think She once had better tit e to to the Name of God than the Cloud of Glorv I mean then, when the Holy Ghofi came upon her and the promr of the Htghefi did overjhaddorv her, and flie enclofed It I may fo fay, the Eternal word in the Temple of he/ Womb, which was there united to our Nature; which />/•*- Jence and Inhabitation of God in the Virgin was the ffreateft Honour that ever was vouchfafed to, or for ought I know that ever humane nature was capable of, next to ^perfina) Vmon of God with Man. And yet for all this, our Wmers Will not allow that the rtrgin Mary was to be adored upon that kore, or that adoration could be paid to her with- out plain Idolatry They Honour, Efieem, Reverence her proclaim her BlejJ-ed to aU Generations' hnt referve Divine worihip only for her Son, becaufe he is God BUJJed forez'er Again, the Papifis, many of them, entertain the fame no- &.*;f f' r^'"'^'l»^/'^"'''^.^"'' C^-^^^^' "^l- that God th^tlr\tfT ''f'>^'^ f e^' a particular manner, and tnat tor the fake of this peculiar pre fence tliey deferve a oe- ^^t^f^TT ^' "^^ ^°'"^' °^ ^"^^^^'•^'"'^ produced by n.u^Jij"^^'' ^' l^^- °"' °^^ ^°°k "'hich he wrote De CuJtu & Moratione Imagmum. His words are remarkable : That Images being fet apart by the Injpiration of the Holy Ghofi . Cnfh rif- "^'^ r' '^^-f f '"^^ ^^'^ of Sanllifcatioi; that ijodhimfelf tsprefent with them after aparticular manner : that ^/Jbem his Power and prefence among them by ujtng them often for hs Oracles And that for the fa^ of this prefence 7go1 Ihadf^^'' 7>/%;«-«..MW iflVoulddelythZ I had done tt my felf I Jhould be a Lyer andm^ateful] Ima- lltJ'-^7rl V"^''"" ^^r "'''"'' A"'^ Particulady of the Image of Chnft imprinted on the Sacred Shroud or Sindon and fliewed at Bc^oncon, Chifflefu, his Book De S. &-* il fe^'i find him Cited in the forementioned Book of Bifliop StiUm^et p 660. pofitively avers, quod pr^fenti divi- m mmtne femper affulget; it hath allways a Divme prefence with •1 ^ 1^ [II] with it: and is therefore often carryed in Proceffion like the Jrk^^ but more Holy then that. And as a farther defence of this Image worfliip, the wife Fathers aflembled in the id Council of Nice^ firft produced the PracStice of the Jervs^ who, as they faid, gave Divine worfhip to the -//r>^and Cherubimsy upon the account of this Divine prefence ; which pretended pracStife, is now become the common argument made ufe of by Bellarmine and other Popifh Writers to the fame purpofe. Taken up likewife by fbme Socinian Writers, Enjedinus aud Wol^ogeniusj to ju- ftify the adoration which they pay to Chrift, tho he be but a Creature in their efteem. But now what anfwer do our Writers give to this Plea of the Papifts. Why ! they anfwer, as the Fathers did of old againft the Pagans, that notwithftanding this fuppoled prefence of God in the Images, which yet they are very well afTured is nothing but Cheat and Impofturej Divine ho- nours conld not be payd to them without Idolatry; for- afmuch as this is cxpre(sly ag^ainft the fecond Commande- ment which directly prohibits it. That it is a plain viola- tion of Gods prerogative, and a high piece of Sacriledge to rob him of that honour which he hath referved for himfelf^ in which he will allow of no Partners upon any pretence whatfbever. As to the pracSticeof the y^n?/, they anfwer, that they never dreamt of paying Religious worfhip, ei- ther to Jrk^ or Temple^ or Cloudy or Cheruhims^ becaufe they knew they were not capable of it. All tkat they did was only a direction of their worfhip towards that place where God had promifed to be fignally prefent among them. Laftly they argue, that upon the fame ground that the Papifis worfhip Images, vi:{. of l{eprefentation and Divine pre^ fence^ that we may lawfully worfhip all parts of the Creation : efpecially the nobler parts of them, fuch as are the Sun and Heavenly Bodies, forafmuch as they are greater and more B 2 lively m^:. lively reprefentations of Gods power, wifdom, and eoodnefs. then any Images can be, which are graven by arf and S the works of mens device -, and therefore can onl v fhe w thf contrivanceandskillof a humane Artificer This way of SZn t^hK^'- ^h^;^"/?-^' i^ forced to acknowledge in any Cieature whatfoever. From which the Bi/hoi, mn it to oe tiiie, they may revive the worfhio of fh^ «.« '>/ He^'^en^ Ftre^Water, Tries, and the ^^^^^^ ^ ftJmn i!?f """°.^ ^"^ '^''^ "^o^ce, that feveral of the Te- ftimomes before cited, relating to Pofan and PnlfhrTi \ are taken out of theBifhop ofV^rX^LeaSfx^^^^^^^ which IS his Defence agarnfi Godrr>yn. And l^did ft fl a mr ' Sat'fcSs^'^ W ^^ ^h/timll^y'^^^^^^^^^ felUfK" ,^yfr''f/S«'-«'«m the Preface to his Expofition Lel^ed Di V- ' ^''? f '' Examination of feveral Great and oerSS^ r"^' °^i^i' ^^"•^'^h ' ^"d among them to the Now if any Man, antecedent to this information ITionlH have asked me what I thought the Btjhop om^ceCo^f "rrfhich'irT^"^ '""''^ pofitio44f thi7^;p^ oarums, which I have been now Examining viz That i tL *2."Poif. account of a Z>.W«. ;>r./Jj:"l5h J!t /.'S IdflffftT' '^^'^'^^o^- ^^<^^ the Cloud of Glory Zt!h kitrVr'J ^T^"^lb^^nt up to the Tempi tZtL ^tbecaufe of Gods reftmg upon tt: Iniuft have anVwe ed S Ijhould not think it poffible for him to^irufe anv ^th aflertions without fhewing his diHike, and pXlhl^Cen fure upon them Becaufe this fingle PaC bv fu^' planting the foundation upon which his whole IfcourfeZ built, K V -I^ t 13 ] built, w^. that nothing but God, upon any confideration wha foe ver, could be the objeft of Divine worfhip; wou d have been a Clear, Full, Efiedual confutation ot his whole Book. -^ He could not let thefe, nor other paflages contained in this Chapter which are juftly liable to Cenfure, pafs without his obfervation j for my Lord of Sarum tells us, as we heard before, that he J^ad the whole Book very carefully A- gain, He could not but know that they were contrary to his ' lettled and avowed notions of Idolatry -, to think otherwife, would be to make the Billiop a Perfon of no judgment and confaderation. idly. He never, that we ever yet heard of changed his Opinion about thefe matters, or Recanted his Learned performance. This would be an Argument of too great levity, to fay no worfe of it, efpecially in a matter of this great confequence. Laftly, what was not CornBed by the Biihop tpas approved, nay it feems by the following words applauded by hira. Now to fay that he approved of a po- luion, and yet harbored an Opinion which was diredly con- trary to It, muft be an Argument of fuch prevarication, that were inconfiftent with common honefty, and much more die Known piety of that Good Man. And yet the Bi- Ihop of Sarum proclaims it to the World, that he J^ad this Booknuh Care, Mar\t and Cenfured every thing that he judzed worthy of J^vierv, and his Cenfure was in all points fubmittedto Here are the Bifiiop ofWorceflers Integrity, Learning andjudt- mmt to be confidered on one hand ; and my Lvrdof Sarum affirmation, which by confequence, overthrows all thefe on the other. Here I confefs I am Ihocked, and cannot think of any expedient how thefe things, feemingly fo inconfi- ftent, can be reconciled. Therefore I refer this matter to the Judgement of the Reader to determine as he, upon due examination of all Circnmflances, Ihall thiiA fit. Neither ought my Lord of Sarum to be offended with me, for leaving this matter undecided, fince he himfelf leaves a ' matter 1^. [ 14 ] matter of much greater importance, then are the mdsment and mtcgrity ofany twooFthe greateft and wifelt^en in the world, undetermined ; and that is the Vnity of the God head, which refides in the three perfons of the Blefled T.i' nity. For in the Expofition of the firft Article, when he comes to give an account of the One Subjiance in the Trinitv he gives us two different Opinions. ^' nl Vf' >^^/*c^^^ ^f^nydo underflanda Numerical or Individu- al Vmty of Subjiance : This carries in tt indeed fomethtm that ts not a^eeable to our Notions, nor like an% thmi Thatl can apprehend. To this he faith,'.. .. /i^4 ^ f hem that £ heve this iV««Wx,„,>^, of which number he doth not make himfelf onc,that if God hath revealed thu rnTheScriptZ Jve are bound to believe it tho tve canfhame no clear appreLlion tlhll ■ '^y; ,^t-:,^^^Jf'-^f another vien> !fllisZl areZ.l7aiji'"'^''^l'' T ^PP''^'"'^'^^ s\x. that there are three dtfltnBMtnds, viz. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, every one ofrohtch are God as much as the other ; that is in otLr »vordi that there are three d,ftind Gods. This he faith, .. Zt'd dmee tntellinble- but it feems hard to reconcile it to' thenftZ oj ymty which feems to belong to a Being of infinite PerfeSions One would think that the /r«. t;;«Vv of the Godhead, (efpe mlly confidering the plain expre&ons of Scripturk^ Xl l^L??l""'"'-'°"L°^'t' ^^'^°1»'^1^ Church after loigand great debates, m the cafe of ^n«.) ftould be adiudgfd fo £i '3 r K C° ^'"P°«^'" «» Article of our Religion, tf at aU good Chriftians who are Members of this Church ftould come to fome pofitive refolution about it. And yet if th^ ^hLJl?\ T"^ '^' "°''°" °f '^'^'^ ^i^nU minds which muft, If they are really fuch, be three diftinB Gol\ doth il doth but Jeem difficult to be reconciled with that U- nity. "« V Now here are feeming, and I think we may fafely fay r^ al objetlions and difficulties -on both fides. The difficulty of apprehenfion, how one Numerical Subftance can be in three diftina: Perfons, on one fide : and the difficultv of reconciling the notion of three diftind Minds or fubftan- ces, with the true Unity of the Godhead, on the other. But one would think, that clear l^elation, together with the Declaration of the whole Chriflian a«rf;&, fhould abfolutelv overrule the difficulty of Apprehenfion in the firft cafe : and that both l^afon and Revelation fliould clearly deter- mine the point for the Numerical Unity of the Godhead again ft the Dodrme of three Minds or Subftances, in the' fecond. And yet both thefe Opinions which concern matters of that importance, that one would think the Rea- der ihould not be left in fufpence or fluduation of thoueht about them, are left undecided. ^ J ^u r ?^.i-"'^^^^» problematical mattei^j and queftions of doubtful difputation, may fafely be left to the choice and determination of wife and good Men, who may differ about then, without breach of Charity, or injury to the common l-aith. But this Scepticifme is not to be extended to all parts of our Holy Religion; and leaft of all to that Article which declares the Vnity of the Godhead For hereby it will be left an indifferent matter, whether a Man believe that there is but one God, or more Gods then One. And yet in this ftate of indifference doth his Lordfliip leave this mat- [^\ 7^^ objedions and prejudices feeme to be equal on both fides. The DoHrine of three minds, as his Lordftiip ex- prefTes it, hath an objeBion that feems as great prejudice againflit, as the difficulty of apprehending the other way is a- agawfl that: And thus the Reader is left at his Liberty to pick and choofe either of thefe Opinions as fhall feeme beft m his Eyes. - " And <,JIL3ir ^M h,¥'* And why I befeech you may not a man u/e the fame li- berty in expounding the doftrine of three perfonsj as well as that oione Suhjlance ? and exprefs himfelf thus. About this Dodrrine there are two Opinions, i/, By three Perfons many do underftand three ftridtly and properly fo called. They fay that one and the fame numerical, undivided eflence' hath three diflFerent ways of fubfiftmg in Father, Son and Holl Ghoji, whereby they become three Perfons, diftmguiflied by their CharoBers, Properties and Internal l^latiom, which are ab- lolutely incommunicable to each other. This carries in it fomething that is notagreeabletoour notions, nor like any thing that we can apprehend. To this it is faid, that if God hath revealed this in Scripture we are bound to believe it tho we can frame no clear apprehenfion about it. zdpy Othei-s give us another view of this matter, that is not lo hard indeed to be apprehended, vi^ that by three Per- Jons they only mean their Names, Offices, or External Illations under which.Godmanifefted himfelf to his Creatures jfo that he took feveral Per/om upon him as occafion required ; fometimes that of a Father, fometimes that of a Son! and at other times that of the Holy Ghofl. This is in a good degree , intelligible J but this hath anobjedion that/«m as great a prejudice againft it, as the diificulty of apprehending the other way is againft that. For it feemes hard to recontue it to that real diftin/ S Sh?h?ft"5^"rS . of >*/. «^/ union. The firft the .fo^mw] will allow of m Chrift the latter they conftantly deny T That no degree of prefence, aquation, ^c. of the God- head m a creature will truely entitle that creature to Di- vine worflnp. For tho the Socinians allow a greater, clofer andwithall a more noble- conjandion of thi Godhead m Savtur in rhl'r T "^^^^.^^'''d^ V^ ^rafmuch as ou^ Savioiu in their efteem is but a man , they are by the Chnftian Church charged with Idolatry for making him Ik 'Sf a°/ r Fr^ ^°^"^'P ^'^'l invocation. Now if this Hypothe/. laid down by the Billiop, is true, "tis cerTain hereby they are extremely injured. And therefore we muft 11 all good conference, either renounce this charge, or dif- claim this principle. "'S'^^j "f o« 3^. That if the ^o««iWare juftly condemned for Idolatry. Nefiorm and his followers muft come under the fanfeS demnation. For they never rofe higher in their acknowkd^e- ments concerning our Saviour, than thefe expi^ffions of the Soamanr amount to Laftly,Thatthemyfteryofthe W " r ttl'Zl^T^'^^f'/t'' ^"^ ^ f^' different na- Zl^ur Th &r" ""^'ir^'^S of the Godhead in our yet tall Ihort of a perfonal union. The confequence of which IS that the .Wn,.^„, of the Godhead of old in the Cloud of Glory , is no juft refemblance of the union of the divine and human nature in Chrift This leads me to confider the third matter of faU laid Thlti^f^'" ^°'^?"?1'2 the.^^^.,.„, which is this, ./'"'^fP''"''^'>rdrvhich frfi dwelt in the Cloud of Glorl fettled notion among them, that God dwelt in the Cloud of Glory and that by vertueofthat inhabitation, div.ne worjhip dasTjd to God as dwelling m the Ckud : nay to the Ckud itfef, (a 'he e^ preisly ■ nfti "t~ ■ "U ' w pre% fiKh in the Dircourfe cited before) n^i m, ,^,.j Cody G^ F«,,&. From t„„ ^ ^ j ^ . ^ ^'* Xri co„ft{„,ly ^XASLh S' ^«*»-«r "hich he then had anrf tk. ."?'?'> ''"?. J^e opinm that the ?™, hi^jSthat t£?ff;:, ^'■«^ *% «>"«'^d againft and poHttconfeS;^/,k';('''r*i'" *"'' *= ^"rf Chi, and ™Srlf t S"' '"?''" '"'' *= '^"'°''* Chnrch m"™r^ 15^ '° ''"^ "plication of our own Ullirch, given upon the Article now before ■«• X,. cannot but wonH^^r lI7^l^^ (u^ u "^^^^roie iis; that we rftS'^-— -hat-h^^^^^^^^^^^ It. It. Such as ifl, that our Saviour was called Godm the fime fenfeasthef/Wo/G/^/ry wasftyledG(,a? and Jehovah^ * idlv That the X)«/w of tlie Divine and humane nature iii Chriit' was the very lame as was that of the Eternal word with the Cloud ; which was not a true fubfianial, but only a Local union, confiftmg m a Dmne prejence and inhabitation, ^dly. That the Jaorattons which were payd to our Saviour were due to hmi only upon the account of this/r.>.. andindwel. //»£ of the, Godhead. 4%, That when our Saviour was at firlt declared to be Cod, and the obje^ of Divrne n>orJbip,thc Jms to whom the Gofpel was firft Preached, underft^d him to be io jn thtsfenje^ and therefore it could bear no debate among them. It rrasjmly upon this point that they could let ttpajs,and accordingly they did in FaB let it pafs without raifmz obje^tons and difficulties about it. Laftly, that the Jews were under no mifiak^s about this matter. For the Jpoliles pro- pofed It to them m that manner as was exaUly c^eealde to thefe former Notions and Ideas about the Cloud of Glory and made no farther Explanations upon this Article. Thus it was declared by thofe who firft publilhed the Gofpel j fo it was received by them who firft heard it Preachedl ; and thus it was underftood on all hands, in thefe firft and beft times. Good God! what an Age do we live in: when we Ihall find fuch Dodnnes as thele, thus openly avowed and fo- lemnly proc antied to the world, as the fenfc andopinioii of many, and if they fliould pafs without Cenfure, oLu the learned Divines of our Church. For ijiy If our Saviour be God only upon the account of * The cloud as the Bifliop tells us, was called GoJ, by reafon of Gods M«gm K And the Apoftles every where in the New TeftamS wJliT Saviour by the name o(K«e^®' or Lord. Bv which fh-.v^;/^^ .a ; ^ he ^M /r*/), Jehovah. Nay it fcems they had of 4t onof Js bei^S bl rbdL°fifZ LordnSi ^ V" H*""^ of ,r,y.„«i a^^ the ^.■-^:. -=???*;«3Pi?^ ■■J& -•-•Af^. ^"' ■' fc— ^ ■■■^f ' 5*i ^ •- Mi^.JT *^'^v-:rf 3^ jlF???ipi^1?e;*5Fi'l ferred upon the fdjuV "iSr fupp^fn^'^ he £d' ^h ' called God as waslikewife the ^ wV T.S 1 fome &««/«;w tell us, vet tis certain thev conlrJ n/. i V'l j i ™^ y#^ the nihabuant put for the Houfe m wSh/dwdl!^' that he ward.eTru^w gI^^^^^^^^ ^ ""'^^^'^ his own, proper, natural Fl{her.„ J ^''^"'f' ^'"^^'f'^. fay that the Etelnal y/ovdXi ZTfh. f^ '^°r'V?°'= vouchfafed to defcend froTn Heaven .nV? i°'n ^^P^'^ n^aking his humane Nature theXe of hi« r?ri '" ^^'"' formerly he had made the Cloud fe^fy Tut tttV' whom the Jews faw with their Vx,^a u V *i '"^' "'•> converfed^ith the^, t^rfc^^JPl^^^^^^ ^^en i/on^/row Heaven, that he n,^ Gods Son Z J r a u\ T' thather^as^n the Father andZe'^Fathil^^^ ^^ ''''' '^"^"'^^"^ thi ST f^ 'j'f^ expreffions he meant only that hew., th,s&n of God by vertueof aZ..«/ *r./^°" J„d„' 7^^^ >«a/l«w«with the Eternal Son of Gn7X .u r t^*''" whKh he affirmed of h.mfelf w^e" „?tl ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ly figarattvely fo : and by vertue of th^ f^ c ' ^ •°"" likewife be affirmed of the S-rand the ^'"J ^/^l^? '"'-'''= this Cloud you might DofirivX "^4 '^'^l^ "^ ^'"0'- Of «» hu Bofome from Eternal Jo,, L A • / ^ , . ' ^'''^ ^*^« this I r 4 thi$ if underftood literally of the Cloud would be rank Blafphemy j yet in the Tropical fence would be very true, that is, meaning by the Cloud the Eternal ^as the Word of God: not onely that the Word dwelt in him^ but that He was that Word, who in the beginning was with God^ and was God. They ftyle him the true Gody the Great God^ our onely Lord Gody God blejfedfor ever. Could all this be affirmed of the Cloud of Glory ? and yet it might be fb with equal truth, if the Union between the diyine and humane nature was no other D than ■V»'*¥^ "»■= -^■r^^ than what was between the Godhead and the Cloud vir onely by way of prejence and inhabitation. But ks Friends, by what they declared upon all occa- iions, had other notions of this matter; and fo had his Enemies. For when in the sth of Jo. he caUed God his Fa- ther^ ,^!v m-n^it, his own, proper or natural Father, they took his true meaning to be , that he was the Son of God lo as to be partaker of the fame nature with him, and thereby made himfelf Equal with God 1 8. ver. upon this account they efteemed him a Bla^hemer, and as fuch they would have ftoned hun, m that he beinf a man made himfelf God, jo.io.v.jid. which danger at that time he efcaped; but afterwards he was apprehended, arraigned and judged wor- thy of death for this bla^emy Math. 26,6 s. Jo. 19. 7. _ Now Blajpphemy, when it hath God for its objea, confifts in words which derogate from the honour of Godj when we cither affirm foniewhat of him that is unbecoming or inju- rious to the divine Majefty , or transfer fomewhat from him which IS his peculiar, and afcribe it to any creature: now what was there in the Expreffions before mentioned, that Ihould raife all this ftorm and indignation in the minds ot the Jews againft our Saviour? 'Tis true he called him- lelt ?*^ Son God, and thereby faid that he was Equal with bod: but they all knew that he meant this onely by ver- tue of a dtvtne Inhabitation ; for fo it feems by the Expo- htion, it was underflood on aU hands. This was a notion that %reedwtth thetr former Ideas, and therefore they never ob- jeHed Idolatry to the Chriflians for worlbippins' htm. And if n were not /^o/^/ry to worfhip him, neither could they elteem it Blajhhemy in him to fay that he was the Son of W, and Go/jf, by vertue of the Indwelling of the God- head in him. They might think it falfe indeed, but they could not account it Bla^emy. ^ For what greater indignity could it be thought to caft on God to iSy, that God dwelt in a good manT made up of ^* of Body and Soul; than to lay that he inhabited m a lamp of inanimate matter, fuch as was the Cloud of Glory. To be fiire therefore the Jews underftood fomewhat more by thefe Expreffions than a bare inhabitation^ or elfe they would never have raifed fuch an outcry againft our Saviour^ and have dragg d him before the Tribunal of the High- Prieft, where he was arraigned and condemned for Blaf- phemy. Therefore the fumme of their accufation they made to confift in this, that he being a man made himfelf God. Not in the figurative Jenfe ^ for fo the Cloud being but a Cloud, was made by them (if we may believe the Expofi' tion) and called a Godi but in the true and proper meaning of the word, whereby he might be (aid to be One with Gods which if not true, was certainly a high Encroachment upon the Majefty of God, by bringing him upon the fame level with a meer man , and therefore might juftly be reputed Blafphemyy and he juftly be condemned for it. In the next place , if the Godhead was no otherwife in our Saviour, than it was formerly in the Cloud of Glory, then it is certain, that there was no real^ perfonal union be- tween the Divine and humane nature in our Savior, fo that the Godhead and manhood tvere^ as the Article, in conformity to the language of the Catholick Church, exprefles it, joined together in one Perfon. But God and man , notwith- ttanding this Local conjundlion, remained ttvo diJlinH per* fonj to all intents and purpofes. For fo it was as to the Eternal Word and the Cloud in which it dwelt ; there was no Hypoflatical union between them : the Eternal Word did not take the Cloud into the unity of his orvnperfon: but each retained its own particular^^^^^wr^. The Qoud was a true fuppofitum diftindl from the Word that dwelt in it: other- wife there muft have been a Communication of properties and charaditers from thefe two natures to the perfon made up of them; fo that we might have faid, the Cloud was God: and if this were true, we might with equal truth have af- D 1 firmed ech'other .which ?„,[?£" ^ recprocally predicated of in the Cloud of Glory Zh!\^u(^^^I'T" °^ '^' ^^^^ tation of the mhn of t^^ Ike .^'\''^'^"''' ^'^P^^^^"" «/ */* Father / dorv w T* ^ r ^, '* ^^ *^' brtghtnefs 9f the dory ofGodinihlt If "H^' ^'^^^ "f *^<^ ^^^z a4 confiders tbinL carefj^t ! fH \"e right or the wrong Xhl^^?'l^^^^ ^*^ ^^^^^^^ termins them to thuS. J .''.''^^ ^^^ buthe^j^- belief ( as '^ ^S r^ln^Z^^ U^% ''''^} 8°^^™ ^^ Jr thofe who firft pub XdtKhriV'i! ^^^^^^^tions of ^borecdveditUti':s?^^^^^^^ -^ ^hofe Now Now this muft afford us a very MelanchoUy reflexion up- on the ftate of Religion, as it now is, and as it hath been in for many Ages. For the declarations which have been fince made upon this Article by the Catholick Churchy are vaftly dif- ferent from the account given of it by thofe who firft Preach^ edit. The laUer explained it, itfeems, by a Local prefence^ for the union between the Eternal Word and the Cloud was no other : But the former by a terjonal union^ which are things quite of another nature. This makes a mighty alter- ation inthefenleofthe Article, and this muft be attended with a great alteration confequently, in feveral other im-» portant parts and Branches of our Religion, as we fhall (hew by and by. However it is but fit that matters fliould be brought back to what they were in thcftrft andpurefi Timesy and that our belief Ihould be regulated by the Primitive Standard. We have been long, it feemes, under great mi- ftakes, but it is never to late to repent and reform. This leads me to confidcr more particularly his Lordfhips Explication of that part of the Article, which tells us, that two whole and perfeSl Natures^ the Godhead and the Manhood were joined in one Perfon. In which there are feveral paflages that call for our obfervation, fbme whereof relate to thp word Perjon^ and the Vnion that is between the Divine and Humane nature whereby they became one Perfon: orfiers concern Neftorius^ who made a great alteration in this Fun- damental Article. Thefe muft be divided into two parts, whereof one relates to his Opinion^ and the other to the ufage which he met with upon the account of it. Firft as to the word Perfon^ his Lordfhip tells us, that the dejign of the CImrch in making uje of that Word was chiefly to di^ ftinguijlj the Nature of the Indwelling of the Godhead in Chriflfrom all Prophetical injpiratiom. Tis true^ that the word Perfon^ doth make a clear and a very great difference between the prefenceof God with our Saviour, and that of the Holy Spirit which dwelt in Mofes and the Prophets. But this could \ 41 Mm-t\t^ l-JS-L-i.? i : [ 3.0 ] could not be the Orfj, or the «»/*;&, of the Church in making this diftmabn- beanfr >!,«. », V"™"'™ "» «-« As,WW/,w2heSead1„Sft,t'" " '""''• the Prophet,, who 4re i°fpTr1d » th the Hofv r? S" "i who denyil a /V— S rf ^^1 Na.S" ^^"5^ /«/ &;««>..««., Prodncef by the' a^^^ thQ Councel of Ephr b i r/, ., , JT F oi Conflantmople, m to prove th{tlJ$«^^; V ved the'Si '■''" ^If^?"^^^ woM which fnniP thLl ^ Opinion of PWaj Sa~ ledged but «- ptS wLm weTcod^;,; ''^ ."''"°"': tha^itw.he„ho"voWldToS';Stti,a:S? he m'i.t 'f% "■'' ,"'' ■■'» "'* °P«i<>". tho afterwrds n.»l.ke»asack„owle,feed by^r/«^ before him, aad Photmut t' \ "; [31] Thotinus afterwards, and is at this day by their Modern fol- lowers the Socinians^ as we heard before. But the true de- lign of the Church in ufing this word was, to exprefs fuch a Vital^ Subflantial%)nion^ as that from thence did refult a true, proper communication of Names, Characters and Properties from the two Natures to the Perfon , if 1 may fo (ay , made up of them. For tho the Eternal Word was a Perfon before the incarnation, yet he is notconfidered under the fame formal notion after it. Before, htfubjifted only in the Divine Na- ture^ afterwards in the Humane as well as the Divine j yet without any change or alteration, but under both refpedis continues but one and the fame Perfon. I fay from this Union there refiilted a real communication of Properties and Charaders, and not only a Nominal^ Figu- rative^ or Moral one, which was all that was acknowledged by Nejiorius and his followers. The Church owns more, by telling us that the Humane Nature had no true froperfubji- fiance of its own, but fubfifled in, or if you will, was fup- ported by the Divine word, who afTumed it into the Unity of his own Perfon. Now Prefence^ Aquation and Inhabtta- tion will not exprefs this. For the jirk and Cloud of Glory ^ notwithftanding fuch inhabitation of the Godhead, continued two ditiinAfuppoJitums and had a proper, feparate fubffience of their own. And tliQ prefence and influence of the Divine Spirit upon Good Men or in the Prophets, tho we (hould fuppofe it there in the higheft degree and of the moft per- manent duration, yet would make no fiich alteration in them, but they would ftill retain their own difiinH perjo- nality. Now it is ftrange that his Lordfliip in the Expofition of this Article (hould allways ufe the words Indwellings Prefence^ and never the word Perfonalljnion^ but ftudioufly feemes to avoid it, tho it be the conftant Language of the Church, ufed before, but efpecially fince the Council of Ephefus. His Lordlhip hath well obferyed, Expofi p. 4;. That Controvert leads I / Simi^ taiL^ ,./-«* [ 31 ] /m^ a/ /o^M^ mth more then ordinary exaUnefs, and Me Writ- ers who let things fall more carelejlyfrom their Pens whenthev ab- frehend no danger or difficulty, are more correB in their ExbreL ens when things are disputed. Now his Lordlhip very well knows, that there was a very long and warm difpute in the S &T''' l^"' '•'? '^'^r °f^^^ Natures in Chrift ; X .f 'Tr T°'°"'7r^? Expounded and Explained It by z Local Cmjunihon and Inhabitation of the Son of God '^ M°? of AW was adjudged Heretical by the Fathers aflembled in the beforenamed Council at EpheSus: and thi whole Church hath ratifyed that Sentence, by appJoy Jg their decifion and reputing Nefi^ius a Heruich If the "I fore h.s £«•#//, had approved the DoBrine of the Church one might juftly exped that he would have made ufe of her rvords and not have covered an Orthodox fenfe under ge- «eral and ambiguous terms, fuch as formerly were made ufe of by Herettck^ to overthrow the Catholick Faith. /fW K^T^ ^nfP' ^° ~"^'^'" ^^'"e 'nen in the fufpition (that his Lordfliip cannot but be aware of) which ther have entertained of the integrity of his Faith. The ufing hrfi ff'"'- °' ^ypo^ical 'Union, inftead of Pr.? fence and Inhabitatton, mi-ht havegon agreat way to have cleared this doubt, tho| being ?he Phmfes made ufe of by theGr^^and £«//«, l^man and J^7 preffions made ufe of by crafty Hereticks to undermine the Catholick Faith. And to be fure his Lordjhip would enter- tain no diflike of it upon that fcore, who hath declared fo great an Efteem for the Greek Churchy that in the Difputes about Tredeflination and Grace, he hath clearly determined in her Favour againft the Latin. Perhaps it will be faid. That his LorJJhip in his Expofition, tho' he never makes ufe of the word Terfonal, yet he acknowledges the thing, viz. TImt ly virtue of the Prefence and Indwelling of tht GodheaJ, the Humane and Divine Nature were conflituted One Perfon. He does fo indeed, and fo did Uefioritu before him : but it is plain, the latter did it fraudulently, in ^ moral, figurative fenfe not in the true and proper meaning, as we fliall (hew by and by. And it is as certain, that any one who believes his Lordjhip's Explication of this Myftery, muft mean fo too. For the Godhead, according to the Expofition, was no other- wife united to the Humane Nature, than it was foraierly to the Ark, and Cheruhims, and Cloud. And it is certam, that neither the Ark, nor Cloud, were aflumed by the Eternal Word into a Perfonal Union, fo that God and the Cloud made but one Hypofiafis. , , , j-. j > 'Tis true, the CUud ( if the Exposition be to be credited J was ftiled "Jehovah, and worihipped as Jehovah. But a Local, or MorU Vnion, tho' it falls far ftiort of an Hypofiattcal one, wiU, according to the Expofition, be every way fufficient to effedl a Communication of Names, and Dignity, and Worlhip. Here viz. in the Cloud, there was S*"""* ^ '«e^5«w, ml *§«*" © '.^77f«/«i', as tJeflorius explained his Union of Two Perjons God and Man, but no difference in the Kind and Manner ot T T * But it will be ftill urged in behalf of his Lordfliip, that he acknowledges a more perfeil Indwelling of the Dettyin our Saviour, than that had been which was tn the Cloud Uil- courfe p. ?7- He doth fo indeed, and the difference that lie afiigns is very remarkable, which he makes fole.y to conlUt in thefe two things. t In 'i?^- r'js-rr [ 34 3 - ». ftlthe Subjecp; th Glory here mas greater than in tU^ other, v,2. the Cloud. For that dmlt %nlyi„ a M^Jt ^eer tnamn,ate Matter; whereas this dwelt i the E^dfall fce long fince vanifli'd, and our Savour to' I-S ?^ ^^'""^ ytt t\i Indwelling of the GodhLd S IX^'^' ?' "'^"''^ efex. Ari^A^tTh r ^ ""^ht be between tm Per. '^ «''»'t,. one /e»m m hence , did refult a Per/on, who never did exift before, buc owes lus- Being entirely to that Vnion. Here, on the other hand, we have two perfe£i and entireTSizturcs united in one Perfon, who did fubfift before, tho' not exadly in the fame manner as he. did after this Vnion. Before, he did fuhfisi in one, viz: the Divine Nature, afterwards in two, viz. the Humane and Divine : of this we have nothing in the number of created" Beings that can give us a perfed and adequate refeniDlance. r/;/xl/«««isbeftreprefented indeed by that of Soul and Body : but there are a great many things in which they difter, not neceflary now to be mentioned : In fiiort, here we have a perfed Man, compleat in every thing but a proper Sub^- flence, united not only to a Divine Nature, but to a Divine^ Perfon viz. the Second in the bleffid Trinity, and affumed" by him into the Vnity of his own Perfon, fo that thefe tivo were one Chriff. . c v r This being premifed concerning the Notion ot a terjon as it is taken and underftood in the common acceptation of the word ; I proceed now to (hew, from undoubted Telti- monies, that Neflorius did believe our Saviour to confift oc Two Perfons united together only by an accidental figurative.; or moral, but not by a true, proper, fubjlantial Union, of which two Perfons indeed arc not capable, it being contrary to the very notion of two Suppofitums, or Perfons, who there- fore can admit of no other than the former. , , , -7. j This will appear, i/?, by his refufing to give t^ blei^d^ Vircln the Name of 3*»^'«©-, which was the firft thing that broSght him under a juft fufpicion, and the reafon of all tae TroiSjle and Difturbance that then happened to the Uiurcrt wpon his account. Several impious Sayings dropt trwtv him in purfuance of this Denial, . which we farther inc^^ , ' K*v? ill tiiiiiiiiffiiiiiiM[ri-rif--iii i I 38 ] - tions of his Opinion • fuch as, Maria non peterh n for fuch he aknowk^^d Chr7;^ t'^f '"^run.ett ij truly be, accoaling^S^ hrNotiS, of Inh f"° ''^'' ^^^'d f A a. J Tears. IfThlrefor^^ t^^ '^'^ "^^^^"^ed by the Virgin, whofe dur^ ^L ^,1^''«' 7,^ y^^Born% tions of the Sun and Moon as oS^ "ft?^ ^^ '^' ^''^^^' God as he faith he was not and he 1^^"' "^^'^^ ^^^ not tobefi,ch,itwasapIainArgu4^^^^^^^ ""f^' o^n him that he muft account Sw' ^^ ^^^^"^ ^ontradidion forafmuch as the i'..^ TSe fulTec* >» ""' ^^">' ^'^^n truly denominated from % hi d^ • °^ denomination, i e which either /Jr/^^o^afe?mm'>- ^t^°"^» ^^-"J «ther Natum, as we ihlwed KSlt'?'^ T'"^'''^'^ '« a Perfon: he muft have owned tSxfj,"'"^ *^ "^^'on of tSr-1^.^-^ <>^ -^f £^tS£ °^^ cSn-;^,^^^^^^ beginning of ground of tlustheiS/waT'thaur? '^'^ '''''• ^" of God, by virtue of an EfeZalr.. .■ ^""'^>'' ^'^e ^o» defcend from Heaven and ftZl/r 'f'"''''*' ^ouchfafed to the Womb of the V rgin^tfedn^ ^°^ ? '" '^''' i" o " which was formed and conceived h^ "T'^/^ ^^'^ Mature, If I s. I ^ >i< C ?p J If this w^re not fo, it could be for no other reafon hut- becaufe he who was the Son of the Vmin wi n/^i V Terfon as was the Son of Gol l^iTl^-^ u°' 'M"""' of ^r.A./«r by the Catholicks, as the juft ^,d neceffif^ confequence of his denial of the Virgin to be ^.ZS. ««Jin msJLegat. ad Armenos well expre/Ies it . ^']f.i"??"''^^^^ich Nefioriusg^v^ oijohn the Baptilt to juftifie his refufal of the word l.^i.©-, mentioned bCS' Cyrzl, Ith. I. r.»/r4 Neflor. cap. 10. gives us fo dear I \n 4ht into his Opinioir. that^it isV^ond a 1 contradSiin Concerning ]o\yx Baptift // ^as foretold, faith T/toX- It theipmt ot God had aflumed the f/u>»ane Nature of %hn^ S^;r?.?, ft -r ^J'^'^^> Who was the^//.fr ofU>i- Bapttfi, was likewife the Mother of the Holy Gholi BerS >*«5^/i/l^dthe ^•/.^^/.i,, u^n th^lpSon wout bave been one and the/«w Terfon. t^f^""""» wouia This is no more then what we may be afTured of from ^ theprinciples of nght Reafon and true Philofophy. For 2 aU^2.«/j are denominated from xktxt Anions which proceed^ thr7>;J^IfS- ^ which IS produced by. it. Now if. the Term rf this Nattvtty or Generation which we are nov/. fpeaking^of , or the Ferfor, who was borir, was on^y^Ma^: iM«« ataMn liMBwa --^w *.■ -if- •Samu , ii"iii1MJA^ C40] then the JVo»fa» who brought him forth, being the Agent ZlTT'^Jr''''^ '^''' ^'"'^' '""ft be only W^^^,&fZ ttn to '// T'-r ''r' '^' "^^ ofsLief^ with re£ t,on to y>/.« Baptf^jho was biit a Man, notwithftanding born hfr, °^ i'^' ^,°'y S'^^ft '" ^''"- But if the Perfof bare him l,ftli''"-^r?^ '''"'" '' ^^"' ^^^^ ^^^^'hich G J. n?/.h fS i'^^'^r ^,' ^°^'*^' P''°P^^'y the Mother of ^xift f?nm .n ff"''''^' ^^ '^"''^^ ^ "^^ Being, which did ^xift from ail Eermty; none can be fo mad as to entertain gJ wa^t^'t^ f Imagination, but that he Xwas c/o^/, was born Jecundum Car^em, according to the Flefli J Deiied Virgin and to which the Eternal Word mited it felf by a /r«. and fuhfiantial, and not by a W andturaHve CuZ i"^/,''^^f"'5..^^em.ghtray, that when he was born ^'". with h m': Ct '^^''''"f""^^'"^ the Holy Spirit ca^l wt™ Cfl'he dK '""' '«''<'' ^ -?S 1^ BH wuom tneretore he did har or carry alonz tvith him when iTltf'Z °^ ^^,^^b °f his isfoth ;. Jnd thS varied hiUft'"''" ^"T\^ °^ °"^ «^^i°"r, who often varied Jus ExpreJIiom ind^d, but never altered hU firftru!; nton concerning him. For when oMgi to f^^^^^ ^rn7tlt^ r ^'™' ^' '^^^^^ tha? the ?>.£ 'who Has God .ong with himr^ho^Set ^ghttfc^?'^ /^/•^wrf, to come forth uitli him. l.i.t- K ^ '^-^^^r, VJ//.; was the Mother of God ^^ ''^ ^^' ^^'^' / '^' isejl rhis \ C 41 J Mefioriui his words to this purpofe are very remarfcablel /^ ^fc not envy^ (aith he, /*(? hlejfed Virgin the Name of xei9^roxAf, I muft oti>n her to he venerable^ iHv Ma^'vtiP ^h, who received GoJ^ Qi. e. who dwelt in and was prefent with the Child conceived in her Womb, for which reafon he was content fometimes to call her 3t««/J>W ) anJfrom^ or hy whom -^f^K^v, preceded or came forth the Lord and Mafier of the World. I fancy ^ faith this vain Man, je?« will commend and applaud this Saying of mine; but be not too hajly in your Commendations. Give me leave to explain my fdf: «* rfpHw ^ tI iM^'iK^tv «rrf a \yavn^. When I fay he proceeded, t do not mean that he was Born of the Virgm : iyiiTm rtLyim 4w\«r. ^¥9f/Ai rjvp iJ>W, I cannot fo foon forget my felf and former Say- ingS^ TO ?rap5A^«r th ^tor Ao>pF c46 riff ;^c«;»To*¥ uttf 3«V», im,^ liff ^HAf iSiJhLx^v yesufSf : ro «) as to that which would clear this whole difpute concerning the Virgin ; and thofe who would not be convinced by it, he pities or rather derides as ignorant and unskitful Men : I fay from hence it plainly i^ppears, ly?, th^t the Z/nion between the Eternal Word and the M^ Chriti^ was^ actiording to Neflorius^ of the fame fert with that of the Holy Ghofi and I De hcato Johanne Bapriffa^ prxdicatur i fan. 4 yrff^mmmm ¥. L 41 1 John thBapti!f: It might be more perfed and In a hieher degree, but that makes no alteration in the manner and ffi of Union. xMy, That J.hn Baptift and the S^/v c5 > nonvithftanding this VnL coJmJV^iZVe'rX' rX T^i Sr'^ f^ t ^^^^ ^- ^he feme ;^&' Zdly Thztzs Eltzaheth could not be ftiled Sphit^s S 4'*/^ That as the InhahLion!( Se Spirk in ^ff t ^'^ could not entitle him to the N^e of r^ r ^- u ^''^^''■^ theW..//^ of theEte^r^af^::? .n o^^vt7"'irmm a Title to that Z/^,, i. e. truly and propSy but^^Iv hv a M<./.»j«^, as the <:W was calle/GoFl [h^pX^ be to be credited. And in this fenfe %ohn Ll^a ^"^.^tT ftiled fo too. ^ * ^''^''■^ ""ght be rf VhJ^^i/T^?.!i^*'' ^'^''>^' notwithftanding the /'r^/',«c. 5* the //*>/y G^e/?, was not the trtje Ohka If R^ll ^orjhtp nor ever was accounted fuch, Yh« wf ST cither by Jews or Chrifiians: So neither for theL. r°^' r r Jh ^'^°?'"> ^°' "otwithftand 4 h^ii:/^f "^ the Godhead. And much lefs could the Cloud TrilT- f :Jima"rCr-"^ ^^'--fc^^^^^^^^ ipr^e itV feveSi Argut'e«s Afe^d'"'^^°"^^'^ which we cannot now panicS arl?3 uS>^ K h^ bufinefs to e.poj/and ridJukl^ ^^^^'^^J^^^ by ftihng our Saviour Deum himefirem ST SXiP^c '°"' heard before ,- and comparing the DcOrine TfeSl.^: Church m. L 4? ] Churcli to the Opinion which the i Heathen Poets had of their Gods, who give us an account of their Birth and Nati- vity, and of the Fathers and Mothers from whenct thev were defcended. Thislhews us what was hk fettkd and r j\^\ff ^^^''ouJd never own to h^ God, norlhe Second the Mother of God, which was indeed the' juTand necef&ry confluence of that denial. And therefore if we ouTSur w''"h f T"I *^ ^"'^^ coSyrcfui^ our Saviour God, and his Mother 3««-J«<: it's plain he did W^^f "t' in the Wi.., and not in tTl^and f roper Sef • for this he did not only deny, but, like anc ~ ther /'.j^^V^ or M-. [coffed and derided 'it as'anabS and fenfelcfe Fable, as we heard before. tJ^^a-^ Argument, whereby it may be made evident. S .i^M' " he would notaUow that what ^u predicated of the Man, could be ^^m.^of Godj or vicJersi tiZ wliat was /.*e of God, could be verijfed of the Man. ' This rnt ^ ^y." Vt V^^^^' ^"^ '^^"fe he WievS tlm L^.Z '^'Y^J^'f^^' Let us but carry in our minS the notion of a Perfon as we Hated it before, vh. that a /'^r> IS the laft, compleat Principle of all Anions which flow from It and ihtSnljea of all Paflions, or the OhieSioi all external Adions which are converfant about, or ulti- mately terminated in itj and is properly denominated from both ; and then this Argument will appear with ftrength and clearnefs. For as Vincentius Utinenfis well exprefles it. Ea unttto fiatuenda efi oh quam (g indiffer enter (£f prLifcui 6a ZL^!' iTT"^'V"''t^''*' ^'^''''^ ^ "" i^icarnis TjLZtc / ^"J ^""^ r '""^ '^"°'=^' *hat the true Vnity of Perfon depends upon the nature of the Vnim. And ■ ' F » muft M m^. m :^. w [44]' therefdre we muft afl-ert fuch a Z^^um, as that from tfTenire w,IJ arife a true Comn,u.}caticn of Adions, Paflions PropS^ b? or. '''' ''c'"'''! '' '^' ''^^>' ^° 'hat what itnl ^d uno^n ^f. P °/"'" ^"^'^^ beforementioned, is transfer- rin fvT ^?f ' ""^ '" ^ ^'«''^^. but ^f''^, Who is truly denominated from both. Jjvuiuxs T)s true indeed thefe things are afcrlbcd to our Saviour ^wX'^P^'^f' t-t'u^'"" ^'^^^ relation to tK aiffere^t Natives of whicli he doth confift, yet are ftill r^l^fr P'-^I^rfy v<^rifiedofthe/.«,. /'..>/whol if S S>'"'''^ Sf °^' ^"d f"br.fts in thofe'two Na1'u,^e/ ^The £' cS^? r^*" ^"?r ^.'^'^' 'hat what wasaffirmS w tne ffnQlmi^ Jefus, could be verified of the Eter,ial .^r>'X?''t,^^''^'"him,. and indeed it was ImSk ^"'^TiT *^"'*^ "^^«'" conftitute them one, but muft leave Thus for inftance, Ne/foriu, would neveT allow fh,r h. IS/ ' /S ■^^ ,"" "f ""Jw ! nor confeqiKiitlv th.r I,. w^ «"f H/If, }^''^,r^ ?"•' -ga?n1C".£dead was cj^^. I He would not allow that rli^ rKn-^K . ' ^cauie tills Obiation was made bv on/» n*/./. « -.a ^ » Perfon V c 45 ] ^ • Pcrfon to whom the Oblation is made, was in his Opinion ^ a wild and fenfelefs Imagination. Again. He who fuferft/^ and he who rej}(}rec{ the fuffering Perfon to Life again, were not the fame; for ym^rh Jio vctlf^ »x i ^aamiU n mTnv^iBf '^h(. The See J of Ahraham was yejier- day and to day; but you cannot affirm that of him who faid, before Abraham was Lam. The one was born in Time, the other exifted from a^fl Eternity. He who was partaker of Flefh and Blood was like unto his Brethren ; but not I/e* who faid, Whoever hath feen me^ hath feen my Father alfo: It was not GodWiztdied^ but a Man \vhom God afterwards raifed from the- Dead. We have hitherto without reafon,' and beyond all meafure, aggravated the Treachery of "judas^ and Cruelty of the 'jews towards our blefled Saviour : the^ one it feems betrayed only a meer Man^ and he was no more- whom the others condemned and crucified. Cur gloriaris Judae^ non Deum fed hominem crucifi^ijli^ was- the Saying oF the tJeftorians of old : you may raife an outcry againfl them if you pleafe, and fay, they Crucified the Lord of Glory; but hefein you are miftaken ; and fo was St. Thomas^ it (hould ' feem, who when he had feen the print of the Mails in the Body of Chrift, after his Refurredion, and thrufl his Hand r into his Side^ acknowledged him to be his Lord and'hirGod.- But he was miftaken, i Ji y6 4«^tf^»!<^« :&»3^ lyfiVxiT*/. i^It- was not God^ faith Neflorius^ whom Sr. Thomas faw and i handled, but a meer Man, and the Body of a Man: For- God cannot be difcerned by your Senfes : tho' St. Jijfhn tQlW^ us another Leflbn, who aflures us in his ift'Epifi. chap, i^ ver. I. that he and the reft of the Apoftles, faw with their Eyes, and beheld, and their Hands handled the Word 'of Life,-, which Word in the beginning was mth God,andwas^God^t\ ift/chap. of his Gofpel ver. i^ I Sic Neftor, apvid Cyril, lib. i. p, i%%. Theffti/ « 3 «" _Thefe Sayings of Ne/forius do beyond all contradidion •difcover his true Senfe of this matter, vh. that the SohZ W and the Ma. who was joined to him, uere really jf rerfo»s, the e»«f was not the other, s^'j^ 'Afe,^ ^ Lf / ^.«.£.^ was not he who faid -,*V 'A^^^ ^,i^« jy ^^. IS who was .^^^« 1$ ^f^c'V'oV, was not ^.i*. but ^eS™^ «^'^, iTn^r^ "°' ^T'^' ^'•'- ^'^ ^'ho was partaker of FJefli and Blood, was ^i^. f. *V..„7.. but not He who fk d .««£,«.< .«. e«0,„ rj. «Ti'^. Here is «W«f „v, ^ i Kiy>,, ,^ hereof the <»w IS ?«»/c,., the other «VJ«»/.<. '^ ' v^nereot Now if after thefe Expreflions he fhould fay ft an hun- dred times what now and then he did affirm J that he .c^dfed. ' '^''' '^ ^'"'' ^' ^^^^ "°^ ^° ^ It being impoffible for words to exprels the Minmon of Perfons more clearly than his fayings beforemen bned The latter acknowledgments are to be interprctTbv h^" former affirmations which contain his fixed aS iLled Opinion, and which he never revoked. He XrTIll ExpreJTtons indeed fometimes, but never changed hisoliJ^ as we obferved before. And therefore thoinJeroJoZ* /..^x which his Lordihip faith are produced by fl^n IMS Vindication, prove onlv this thar h^ u.a l . regard to ModeflyHs he had Vt?;./? upo'n ^^^^^^ wIh '"^'Z? '''^^'^ 1° "^'''^'^ himfd^ faking Sck ward and forward, as hath been the conftant P alice of ftuffle and prevaricate, fay and unfay, chLge and X; - . Now if Neflomis had meant honeftly when he Tnm^ times raid, that there were not tm Sols' tloCh^l^Zt muft be /J., different Perfons, why then did ^^T^\^^^^ declare, that what was verified of the Son 7^/^«, muft Iikevvife h I C47] likewife be affirmed of the Son of God. If ft were the Son-,- efManthzt both died and was buried, and rofc again • who after his Refurredion was feen by his Apollles, kk and handled by St.nomaj, afcended into Heaven, and tlicre fits at the right hand of God ; then all this muft be verified:, ot the Son of God, provided that they are but one and the fame Per fin. Oh, but it may be feared (faith this Heretkk) thar Men may hereby be led into fome mean and dilhonourable Ihoughts of God, as if the divine Nature were capable of being born, and dead, and buried, ^c. a ridiculous Sug- geltion. The Godhead could not be born indeed, but he that mas pod might, and was, if we believe the Scripture, which faith, that the Son of God was made of a mman\ Gal. 4. 4. The Woman then fure was the Mother of her own Son, who was made or born of her. This Son, thus mtf• -• 15 # i 1#- [48] wards laid in the Grave • not indeed in his Jhine^ but 'humane Nature; but it was but one and the fame Per/on who- fubfifted in both Natures. And this they faid in conformity to the Language of the Scriptures, againfl which this Man might, and if he durft, no doubt would have raifcd the fame outcry. The Calum- nies with which he loaded St. Cyril and his orthodox adhe- rents, might with equal Juflice be laid to the Charge of our 'l/eJfeJ Saviour and his Apoftles^ who affirm the direct con- trary to his impious Opinions. John Baptih faith, i Joh. izj. 30. that he who cometh after me^ was hefore me. This could not be true in the fame refpe(3:, L e. if affirmed of the fame Nature, but yet was verified of the fame Perfon. Peter to the Qiieftion propofed by our Saviour, Mattij. 16. 13. Whom do Men fay that I the Son of Man am ? returns this Anfwer, ver. 1 6. Thou art the ChriB, the Son of the living God, /. e. the natural and eternal Son of God, and not one who was made fo in time, by Adoption and Grace. And Chriff affirms of himfelf, in anfwer to the Queftion of the Man horn Blind, Joh. 9. that He whom he then ikw with his Eyes, after the reftoration of his Sight, w^ho then xonverfed with him, was the Son of God; and that not nomi- naSy and figuratively, but truly and properly. And fo his words were underftood both by his Friends and Enemies, as we ihewed before. Again. He that afcended into Heaven^ was the fame Per- fon with him who came down from Heaven, who was then in Heaven, when he converfed with the Jews upon Earth, Joh, 3.13. Te the fame purpofe our Saviour exprefles himfeU; Joh. 6.6%. What and if ye fhall fee the Son of Man afcend into Heavjen^ where he was before > that is, before his Birth and Appearance in the World. The Apoftles ftill preach the fame Dodrine, That it was the Blood of God by which his Church was purchafed, A^. xo. i8. That the. Man whom the Jews crucified was the Lord of Glory, i Cor. x. 8. The '» I C 49 ] - The fame Lord who was nailed to the Crofs, was after- wards laid in the Grave, and rofe from thence ; * and this Lord was God. The Son of God was made of the Seed of David, I Rom. 3. being at the fame time the Son of David and the Lord of David. This indeed was verified yj.T «x\o )^i>;c If we can believe St. Paul, he afliires us he was. If fo, then all is at an end. The Son of God was the Son of the Virgin ; the Virgin was the Mother of her own Son, and confe- quently, the Mother of God: not the Mother of the Godhead, nor of the Son of God as to his divine Nature, but fpeci-- ficat'tve, the Mother of him, who being the Son of Man, was likewife the Son of God. Neflorius would never allow this, as we heard before, but altered the whole Language of the Scriptures, and our whole Faith with it; by introducing two Sons, two Chrifls', w^io were two diflinii Perfons, as well as confifting of two diftindl Natures. His Lordfliip indeed, to foften the Opinion of Neflorius, tells us, that the making of two Perfons in Chrift, was, as fome think, from many Citationt taken out of his Writings, faflned upon him only as a Confequence hy his Adverfaries. Expof. p. 5*1. Here •}!• »«n ^sdy,>'j.rme^iig,p,^g.r^ \viry*"tr • ^t' dlUf ^ ii,Ti(xi*,,»r> XMar, which betoken an accidental or fgurafive, but not a proper, ejfential Vn'm. This fgurative Unity introduced by the Nejlorians is that which they were ftill charged with by the Orthodox and IS thus exprefl^d by the fifth General Council : au'o :ri'^„ woifAvSi lA^rru, itP(uvh w irvny>(Uv, i, T/fcJc, ^ «'««,,, i^TofKrln- */»-, «5 if ir^mymt, ^ ?,* ^eiiiit -^Kiimrcu hiynt. This with what went before I hope is fufficient to evince, that Nejiorius was juftly charged by the Church with affirming two Perlons m our Saviour, as that which unavoidably followed from his denying the blefled Virgin to be deorJ^. And if fo, I hope there is no injury in faftening upon Neftorius the jult and necefTary confequences of his impious Opi- nion. r r For my own part, I always thought that one of the bed ways of confuting Errors, and putting a flop to the Growth of them was not only by /hewing them to be falfe, but hkewife by difcovenng the dangerous Confequences that at- tend them. A fimple Falfhood may be capable of Excufe or Extenuation: But an Error that carries along with it great Mifcbef relating to the Honour of God, the Welfare of Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, ought not to be looked upon with indifference. And that the Opinion of i^eftorruswas of that fort, I come now to (hew. u,%^ T?^-^"'^ ? ^^^ ^^^ peremptorily denied that the blelled Virgm, who was undoubtedly the Mother of Christ was *.«r5x^, the Mother of God; this was to imply, and in other words to affirm, that the Eternal Word which dwelt m the Man Chrift, and was the Son of God, was not the fame with the Son of the Virgin, otherwife it would have been a plain contradidion to have denied it. He therefore did hereby clearly introduce two Softs, two Chrifls, two Per- Sons, *M.r ^ .mv whereof the one was not the otlier, but were clearly diftmd from each other. G i Tiie 1 ■l^l^1| m liipWtMiiMttiilp ^i??.^^VV^-S5J'3^^ C Hi i tut no fuch great matter as to caufe Wonr^^r ,n^ ^ S Z7 ^- ^"^ ^"seis, wVo^dlTS ^t^^p^-^L^;^ of our^1r4:!;;„"Sjf^,^c ^^^^^^^ this great Work it. He who was t£ L^5/ r/'T.^ ^"^ accompliftcd born Vin of ImZt'ZlS, TZ'Tu' ''''' ^"^ down from thence ftooDeH fnT. *" Heaven, came Womb of the ViSn .Wk • '''^ ^' '^^ ^"ter in o the Savant, and in ft w/^It;:^^^'" '^^ ^^ ^/'^ mean Life, and died a S{fu\ ^. '^"'"'"""' ^'^^^ « accurfed Death He wh« f ' '^"omimous, and an Bofon. of hTjath^'^h ff"!,"^'-"^^ ^g^s lodged in ^e ^'hereto lay his aJJ He 'hnT!,T '^^ ^^^'^ W «. and was there en^mpafS wfth rI^Tt"-^^^^ and /hone with fuch a SpJeSor to wh^^'^''' '"^ ^^^'^ could approach, now appS in an njl?'' "° "'°"^' ^^^ dmon. was contented toT I' „' ■« '," o^'/' v "'" ^"• i^nt'X^*^^^'^^ ''^'^^ - -r/tt;^:f In^;^^^^ re/S°u"ort ot^^^^^^^ andwhen we f-^^^; /hat he was content r'nlS* 'v" !^ ^^^ a" /- ''^r ^appy ; to be poor th« w?miah?'J"'^''^y"' '° '^"^er us 'gnobJeand deffi tL ' S-'.^k'""^^^^' ^° ^e^^ome to die, that we misht HvA ""'g'^' ^^ made honourable- ^•der this withouTfhe Wh^ZV ^S' ^^y, can con-' Ateion > But now, if hTwerfn^^^ °^ ^^"'^"^^ «nd m'tted to this, and wis thus^nmKr J \'"'"i^'^ that fub- more, if the GodheaTont 2.?^- ^'' ^^'""^ ^^^ "o m the CloHd ef Glory wLh nl " Jk"" ^' " ^^''mcrJy did ^wu J It wiJi infinitely weaken our It . i t i our Love and Gratitude to our gracious Redeemer, and th^ Wonder of his Condefcention will quite vanilh. ThirJly^ The next thing to be confidered, is the End of our Saviour s Birth and Coming into the World which was to acoomphlh the Salvation of Mankind. pJr us M^-n and for our Salvation, faith tht Creed, he earned, ivn from Hea-^ 'ven. He took our Nature upon him, that in it he might be capable oi dytng, and by his Death to make an Expiation for the Sins of the who e World. And accordingly % one Offering he hath ohtay Sin, nor be of fufficient EiBcacy to purge the Confcience from dead' Works. It was necefTary therefore that he fhould be God that his divine Nature being united to the humane, it might put fuch a value upon his Sufferings, tliat they might be> come an all^fugcient Ranfom for the Sins of the whole World. This was one of tlie pernicious confequences with whicb the Fathers m charged Neflorius, that by dividing Chrift lato two Perfons, the Perfon of God' from the Perfon of the Man,v/ho died and fhed his Blood for us ; he weak- ned the Efficacy of Chrift's Sufferings, and totally over- threw their yWfr/Vj^becaufe the Death of a Man could notr prove a full, perfed, adequate SatisfaiiioH, to the Juftice of God for the Sins of Mankind. And they never dreamt of m other SatufaOion but what was equivalent to the demerit of Sin, and the Punifhment of the whole World In fhort, the Redemption of the World, founded in 3. proper and PerfeaSatisfanion, could' never in- their Efteem be accomplifhed by the Death of any meer Man, how mucb ibever dignified and diftinguifhed from other Men by ar 6**. L56 1 Sv'm Prefence and Inhabitation of the Godhead , except likewife the Godhead were fo united to that Man, as that thereby they became one Perfon, and confequently, that the S^prjngs m^ht be filled the Sufferings of God, and the Blood by which he purchafed hu Church, the Blood of God. This was alwayes denied by iJeflorius, and indeed not only denied but derided Hkewife by him, as it was before Iiis time by Jem and Pagans ; as alfo by the Gnrfticks and A^raonftessvho thinking it a great D.flionour to God to aftrm of him that he was born, and fuffered, and died, and rofe again, would needs perfuade the World that all this was performed not in truth and reality, but i* Jui only Jhalt thou ferve. As this was the fenfe of the Fathers of old, fo all good Chrifbans, and particularly ox^r FroteJluHt Writers, declare It to be theirs, ui their Writings againft the Pap^s. For as thefe latter have revived the lame pretences for the ^fotrif ^'T- '"i 'T^''^ '! '^' ^^^^-''- n' de ule ot o]d,^« a divt»e Prefence and Inhahitation- fo our Writers make ufe of the fame Arguments to confut^ PoTih VLlw' f ^^J^Tl^^oLy , particularly tKS B.lhop of Worcefler, ,n the Book fo often before mentioned cites and approves of the Teftimonies of the FatherT^^^ the Artans, ^ndo^ St. Cyril zg^mH Nejlcr tan Idolatry And always contends in oppofitfon to the Argument? of the Papifls, taken from the pretended Worihip given by the Frejeme ; that no fuch Frefence or Conju»aion, or any 7y„io^ ¥ /^^» perfo^al to the Godhead, tvi/I entitle a Crlaturelo Jtvtne Worjh^p. That the humane Nature of ChriH s 1 crher..fe to he adored then a. it' is united to\h Zintyh, ajrueh ofiattcalVnion-lecaufe thereby the Worfhip Vu^. mately termnated in God. And that //•. ChriLn Church '^^J^y^ h^l-vcd that ChriH could only le the il^etl fot t;^;^,^:^ Xhlshe repeats agam ^and a^ /^/.« and D^fcourfe, vtz. that an Indwellin. oftheGodhad tn a Creature gives it a juB Title to the NaL f cJd Zi that Adoration .iinecorne due to it upon Z Ue' Z^ that ./;. Jews ./ old ^vorjhipped the Cloud of Glolyhcautf C 59 ] God's reflini upon it. For, to fay that the Eternal Word "WdiS hjpoflatkally united to the Cloud, I believe will by moll be accounted Blafphemy. To worfliip it without fuch zper- fonal Vnivn^ in the Judgment of the Bifhop, mufl: be plain Idolatry. Laflly^ The lad pernicious confequence of Mejiorius his Opinion was, that by denying the Incarnation and Birth of the Son of God, he overthrew the whole Chrlftian Faith, and the whole Oeconomy of Man s Salvation. And this was particularly laid to his Charge by the Fathers aflembled in the Council of Ephefus. For at the opening of the Synod, they laid the Nicene Creed before the Aflembly, and then they ihewed that Neflorius^ by denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God^ denied the Faith in all the parts of it, as it was eftablifhed in that, and in the Apoftles Creed before it. In the Apojlles Creed^ we are inftru(9:ed to believe in Jefus ChriH the only Son of God ; this Title is enlarged with a more ftill and explicit acknowledgment of his Divinity in the Nicene Creed^ where this only begotten Son^ begotten of his Father before all Worlds^ is faid to be God of God^ very God of very God^ begotten not made^ of one and the fame Subjlance with his Father. This only begotten Son, born before all Worlds, for us Men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven^ and was incarnate by the Holy Ghojl of the Virgin Mary^ and was made Man^ not only prefent with, and joined to a Man, but really made Man. And if God was thus made Man^ by a true, proper Conception and Birth, then it is certain, that this Man thereby became God; not indeed by a change and tranfmutation of Natures, nor only by Adop- tion and Grace, but by a //'«^,y«^7?^»^/^/Z^/^/^» of two Natures in one Perfon. Now if Nefiorius had truly believed the Doilrine con- tained in thele Creeds^ the Controverfie between him and the Church would foon have been decided. For, was not the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before alt H % H'orlds, rr littral mtf' m ■«.•* %>*/ ^tf/-//f, conceived likcwife yes fure, this cannot be denied Was not fhe then the Mother of her own Son > this can as little be doubted of as the other. Laftly, Was not this Son of God thus begotten of his Father before all times and born of his Mother in the Fulnej! of Time, the true and Eternal Grd > yes, the Creed faith he was. God of God and to take away all fraudulent and figurative Expofitions of that Word it fays further, that he was very God of very Godz Doth It not then follow from all this, that flie who was the Mother of this Son, was like wife the Mother of God > no Man can be fo fenfelefs as not to fee the necefTary con- nection between all thefe ; and confequently, tTeflorius his denial of this was founded not in his Ignorance, but hfidelitn and obftinate denial of this great and fundamental Article ot the Creed, viz. that the Son of God was horn of, and there- by became the Son of the hleffed Virgtn. This was the My- Itery of the Incarnatiou which he denied and derided, and ^S '^k'"^ ? ?r I ^^i"S that was both abfurd and im- polTible; becaufeif the Son was thus incarnate, the whole Tnnjy muft be fo too, in his Opinion. For thus he ob- lotted againft the Incarnation, as his Friend Acacim of Me- ///^«e informed the CouncU of £//.^/«j at tiie firft opening of It. 4tl. I. />. 498. r & Now by denying this one Articfe, he did deny all the S? ^"^ 'hereby fubverted the whole Chriftian Fairiij as lohn Cafftan tru^y laul it to his Charge. For fuch is the ne- cellary connexion between the parts of our holy Relieion I mean the efTential and fundamental Articles of it that he who denies one, muft rejed all the reft. He who was he- ^tten of^God, was lorn of the Virgin : He who was thu. tuned. Oh, faith tJefiortus, I am not able to bear thefe Sayings, they offend, nay, they wound my Ears at the meri- tioa \. I * tlon of them. What ! to fay that 60 J w^s horn^ andjufferecf^ and tfied^ this is Plaia auditus mei^ vnUm a-irhtm fueamm. But Nefiorius was not the firfl that fhewcd his diflike of thefe Sayings; Jews and Heathens \ov]gh^:'^or^\^'tYtQC\\l2^\y fcandalized at them. They were to ^he one^ a S'-tmhl'mg' Mock ; and to the others^ Foohjhnefi. But we are not ailiamed either of the Birth or Death of the Son of God ; which no Chriftian will difo\^^n; neither can they deny, but they muft hkewife turn Apofiates^ and renounce the whole Chriftian Faith. With this Apnjfacy the beforenamed Cajfian charges Ne- (lorius^ Lih. 6. de tncarn. Dom. cap. 17. By denying the Son^ faith he, thou do ft deny the Father; for he who denies him who was begotten^ at the fame time denies him of whom he was begotten. Again.. By denying him who was lorn in the Flefh^ IhoH doH deny him who was horn after the Spirit^ viz.. •by an eternal Generation : becaufe it was the fame Perfon, who being begotten of God, fubmitted to a fecond Nati- vity, and was afterwards born of a Woman. Now, hy not helieving him to he horn^ thou muft at the fame time not believe that he fufered. By denying his Taffton^ ivhat now remains hut that thou deny his Refur region ; for none hut he that fuh^ mitted to Death could be raifed from the dead. The con- lequence of this is, that by denying his RefurreHion^ thou- muft difown his Afcenfion into Heaven ; becaufe he that afcend- ed is the fame with him that defcended firfi into the lower parts of the Earth. And in* the conclufion he thus expoftu- lates the matter with this Heretick: ^ Quantum in te eft,, as far as in thee lies thou wouldeft not have it believed that Chrifl. rofe from the Dead^ or is afcended into Heaven^ or fits ^ at I Ergo quantum in te cft,Dominus Jefus Chriftus neque ab infeiis refur— rexit, neque coelum afcendit, neque ad dextram Dei Patris fedet, neque ad. ilium qui expcdatur examinationis ultijnae diem vciiiec,.nec vivos ac morr-- tuos judicabiu . rntellig^vs- m the right hand of God, or flull fnm thence at the lad day, come tojudge the Quick and the Dead And now darefl the,, continue, n tkeChurch and account thy felf a? riefi andBifhop tntt, who thus mpmjly denied thofe Dc^rines, upon the Fro. Mion and for the defence of ivhich thou did/ receive thy Of the fame Book, he upbraids him with his Infidelity in a greater fliarpnefs and feverity of Style. What hafl tf2 o do ii 11 L T'^ "^^ ^'""* '"'^-' % P'^firice pollute the X r / •/ "^"A ^"'f '^'''^'' fi'""^ "' 'f^'^i^^r. afield £imZ ' '"^ f'"^ f^-^'»'' ^-^M impudentiflimum ac ir- fid ffimum OS tuum, thy rnofl impudent 'and perfidious F^reFead oftL r"/t f'f^^' ^'''^ thouafume the HoJr of thePneflhood, fit down in the Bifl^ops Chair and vrofeR thy felf a Mafier and Inflruaor of olhets ^ who'art fgn^^^^ dir^fr""^^^' ^^'orfe denied the/r/?F.;«.,>/,, of^eoZ desofGod. (and vvith them God himfelf) For fuch thefe Artic es of our Creed have always been efleemcd rerhaps it will be thought by fome that it u.,c tr.^ great a prefumption in Jo. 4.,/who v^'as bu Cw jyejtorzus. But here it is to be remembred, that the matter in difpute between them was not a Trifle or a doubtfbU.! llematical Queflio„, ^bout which Men ^igh t^ytC^ But It was z fundamental Article of our Rehgion, the denTal cxXo'Sh>olkr5J%?e;!;tpulft Fxvaacrcr? Cur mum OS mum Populo Sd "S cs n J ""^"f "'J"^ ='c pcrfidiir.- of of which did, by an immediate and" necef^ry confequence, fubvcrr the whole Chriftian Faith. This then was a point in which every Man who was called by the Name of Chrift had an Intereft, and which every one therefore (hould, to the utmoft of his power, defend againft all fuch who^ either openly oppoje^ or fecreily endeavour to mdermir.e it. And this he may do without foftening the matter with Apologies and Excufes^ as if he were ajhamed or afraid lo profeX and to his power maintain the Gofpel of Chrift. xdly^ We are to confider, that fuch is the malignant na- ture of Herejie, and the Infamy that juftly attends it, that it takes away all that refped, which a Man's Place, Funcaioir or Charader would otherwife entitle him to. It degrades a Man from his high Station, puts him upon the fame level with every ordinary Perfon; and he may be^ treated likewife in the fame manner ,• I mean without thofe Excufes or Pre- faces of refped' which otherwife his place might juftly call for. Every Heretick, according to St. Paul, Tit, 3. n. is ttJ7B;;Wxem;, felfcondemned. This is particularly true witli relation to the Sacerdotal or Epifcopal Office : Here, viz. in the cafe of Heretical pravity, the Authority is quite loft. He who is infeded with it pronounces his own Sentence^ before the Cenfures of the Qiurch pafs upon him : So that he cannot take itamifs, if thofe who are otherwife his Infe- riors, attack him with the fame freedom as tliey would 2: vulgar Heretick. • This we find was thePradiceof the Ancient Church, Fref lyters oppofed the Innovations of the Faith when made by Bijhops, and were not then, according to the Language of our times, ftiled Haughty and Infilent, or proclaimed Ene- tnies to publick Peace and Order, for fo doing. On the other- hand, they treated fuch Hereticks with that Severity whicli tliey dcferved^ and their freedom was allowed by the Churchy. anii N.^ •rl-^rrr*' yMwIiiiHiB , i n r -A.-} :nnd they applauded for it. When Paulus ' Samofatenus pub- ^iihed his Opinions againft the Divinity of our Saviour, il was followed by an Uproar of the whole Body of the Clergy ; ^jhops, Prtefis and Deacons, to a very great Number, aff m^ S \^"'''"^^ fo P"t a flop to this growing mifchief And 7r!^.^ f • '"°''' '"Ta ^""^ '"^^^ ^° war, they ho longef trea ed him as a Pafior, but confidered, and fell upon him VZ ^''"'}^ Tf '^f'' ' n^^/-,whoinftead of/..^- •/«?, deflrojed and dev.^ured his Flock fJji'^'^V''^^' j^ ^' ^'■"^» ^'^ prevaricated, and by feveral impofed upon the Piety and charitable temper of feveral MeTtl'.^ TrJ f'^r '^''^ ^^^'^'^'^^- But at a fecond Meeting at ^«//.c/, his Errors were fully deteded, his Arti- . fices laid open and he himfelf was in the conclusion, as he de erved, condemned and depofed by the Council. This ^edion was chiefly owing to the siacity and Labours of Mahmn^ a learned Prieft oUntioch ; ^^■h6 was fo far from being cenfured for this his oppofition'to his B^JhTp, l^Z Name ftands upon Record in the Annals of the Church and he ,s tranlmitted down with an honourable Characaer to our times ; fo that whereever this Story of Paulus Same f^ems is told, that likewife which Makhion^.d, i ^ the Zeal Wifdom and Learning which he (hewed in deteaing and S? S'Sfnl:" ""^ ^^'"'°"^'^^ ^'^'''''^' ^^''^ for a S- inf^uiVV^'^J''^^'^'^^^^ '^''' the Opinion condemned m PauUi Anttoch is in a manner the fame with that which was cenfured in N^onus at Ephefus. For al 8$^ S I'ngfleet obferves in his Findkaticn of the Trinity/^. 3^. cap. aj. ' ^ . J ««T.Ai|. ,,ec„, „i t,6f>n-ot. Idem. Paul M >l C «r 3 Paul wjd'e a/e o/^// the arts to dfguife himfelf that he could-, and when he found the making Chrtfl to he a meer Man would not be endured, he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Herefxe, affirming that the Kiyof did dwell in him, and that there were two Perfons in ChriH ; one Divine, and the otfjer Humane : and two Sons, the one hy Nature, the Son of God who had a Pre-exiflence ; the other ^ the Son of David, who had no Exijlence before his Birth. This is the Opinion which Dyonifm of Alexandria, in an Epiftk to the Church of ^»- tioch, fets himfelf againft, as that which was affirmed by Paul. Some learned Men, fuch as VaWfiiu, Dr. Cave, Dupine. do not think this Epiflle genuine, and from the Ex'preflions in it relating to the two Natures in Chrift, think it was writ after the Herefie of l^efiorius. But as the Bijhop well ob- ferves, that was no blew Herefie, as appears by the Cerin- thians ; and it was that which Paulus fled to as the more plaufible : which is confirmed not only by that Epiftle of Dionyfms, but likewife by what others of the Fathers have delivered concerning it. Athanafius lays it to the Charge of the Followers o^Paul^ in his Book de Incarn. That they held two Perfons in Chriff cne horn of the Virgin, and a divine Perfon which defended upon him, and dwelt in him. Epiphanius Hxr. 65'. to the fame purpofe, that the >^'oyo, came and dwelt in the Man Jefus. Phot ins faith that Mejtorius tafied too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samofatenus. Epijl. 3 ^. and that his Fol- loivers -offer ted two Hyprfiafes in Chrift. If this be fo, then the Errors of ^ad and of Neftorius were exadlly the fame. And to this Opinion Bilhop StiHingfleet in- clines. Some other learned Men have reprefented their Opinions witli fome difference, as not exadly the fame. So Mari^ts Mercator and Leontius of old. J3ut the' there mi"ht be fonic Variety according to them ; yet they all agree m tliis, I that MM trrm M 'l g i'i^" ^ L 66 ■] that Paul explained his Opinion concerning our Saviour by an hhahitsition cf the divine Word^ by which fbme thouc^ht he meant a divine Terfon^ others, a divine Energy whereby Chnft aded, and which dwelt in him. fi.v/- //;/j Dotirine of tijc Divinity in Chrisf by hhahitation mu that which was condemned in the Synod at Antioch, and the fdjiantial Vnion of loth Natures afjhted. So the Bijhop^ p. 39. By all which it appears, ly?, That if Paulas Samofatenus was jullly reputed a Heretick, and cenfured as fuch, Nejlo^ rius muft likewife come under the lame Condemnation. 2^/y, That the Chrllfctn Church never thought this great Article of our Faith, concerning the Incarnation of our Sa- viour, rightly explained by the Prefence.Ailuation^ or Indwelling of the Godhead in him ; as it formerly dwelt in the Cloud of Glory. Indeed the Bifhop of S arum Yaith, // ivas fo taken and underfiood hy the Jews^ this being agreeable to their for- mer Notions^ and the only Notion that could be allowed by them without Objection and Oppofition. If this be fo, then we have fome tolerable account of the reafon of that Favour and Protection which Paulus received 'from Queen Zenobia. She was a y(?ir, and profefled her felf to be of their Belief. Faulus to oblige her, fuited his Dodlrine to her Perfwafion, as Theo* doret exprefly affirms. She, it feems, retained the ancient Notions of her Forefathers in Religion ,- Paul advances an Opinion which was exac'tly agreeable to it,- againft which ihe could make no exception, and therefore took him into her Favour, and by Her he was protcded againft tlie Sen- tence pafled upon him at Antioch^ and continued in the Pof- icflion of his See till Aurelian had conquered Zenobia and by his Authority he was at laft eje(5led. ' But whatever Zenobia^ as a jew^ might conceive of this matter, the Chriftians of thole early and followincr ^ges l»ad other Notions of it. They always looked upon the Dodjine of Inhabitation as an Heretical Opinion^ they con- demned ^mm {.67-\ demncd it as fuch in Cerinthus^ ^ Arternon^ Paulus Samofatenus as they did likewife afterwards in Nejhrius^ Photinus ; which latter aflerted the Pre-exiflence of the ^oyo^, and its inhabiting in Chrisf from bis Conception : which is thus explained by St. Hilary de trin. lib. 7. That God^ the Word^ did extend himfelffb far^ as to inhabit the Perfon born of the Virgin. This he there calls a fubtile and dangerous Doctrine. For which, Photinus was depofed at Sirmium : and what was there done was univerfa/Iy approved^ net only at that time^ but ever after. So that as the forefaid Bifliop StiSingfleet obferves, p. 50. of his Vindication^ we have the general confent of the Chriflian World^ even .in that divided time, again ff the Pho- tinian Do^rine. And for the fame reafon they muft condemn Neflorius^ who agreed with Photinus in aiferting that the Word had a pre-exiflence, and that the Nme of the Son of Cod did belong to ChriH after the Inhabitation of the Word. And thus have I endeavoured to fliew the pernicious con- fequences of Neflorius his Opinion : and I infifted the longer upon them for a particular reafon, viz. to prevent an Excufe, both of late and formerly made in behalf of fome Men, who have theboldnefs to oppofe the fundamental Articles of our Faith, yet have the Wit to do it in an artificial and oblique manner : That is, they do not diredly attack the Faith, but yet exprefs themfelves in fuch a way as by a juft and neceflary confequence fubverts it. And here it is faid, that Men ought not to be urged with the Confequences of their I This CerhithiH was a Judai:{ing Chriftian : This may give fome color, for ought I know, to that Notion of my Lord of S arums, vi:{, that the Jcxvs undcrftood our Saviour to be God only by virtue of the Indwelling of tlue Godhead in him ^ and if lb, Cerinthus might learn this Dodrine from them. But I think we may venture to affirm, that he could never receive it from the Writings of the Apoftles, who give us a quite different Explanation of this Myftery of the Incarnation, tho' his Lordihip determines in favor of this ^cvpijh, or if you pleafe, Jud^i\ing Notion, which in thofe early times was accounted a dangerous Herefie : and what was Hereiic then, upon due ex- amination, I doubt not, will be found fo ftill. I z Opinion; [if^-^ w^- l ^ C <$8 ] ' ■ , Opinion ,• erpeci-ally if the matters treated of be of a ntyfte^ rious nature, and above our comprehenfion. Here, they fay there is room for -variety of ExpofitioHs, and room for the' exercife of our Charity towards the Pcrfons vvh.ich offer them For the' they expound the Article in fuch a manner as deltroys the true and clefifmd meaning of it, yet they are to be freed from Cenfure, provided they retain the Words and believe tliem in any Senfe, which the literal and Gram- matical Conjlru^lcn will warrant. Now this is an Apology which, if allow'd, will do incom- parably more mifchief to the Faith than any open and avowed Uppoiition to K. For if once this Latitude be allowed fo as to come into fafliion. Men may not only in time under- mine our whole Religion by a treacherous Explication^ but Which will prove more fatal, all liberty of detedlins and oppofing fo pernicious an attempt wiH be quite ta^ Noe, non fie ahilunt odla. The Faith IS ^ /acred Depofitum committed to our Care to be preferved inviolable and entire; and we cannot without the higheft Treachery deliver it up to thefe empty, tho' popular pretences. Tis true, a Man is not always to be cWed vfim the 111 confcciuences of Ws Opinion/and that partial larly II C 69 ] larly in two Cafes. i7?, When thcSu':je^ of the Difpute is douhtful, and where a great miny things mxy very pro- bably be urged, both from Scripture and Reafon, on both fides of the Qiieftion. And this may probably be the Ce^.fe of the qui^qu^irticular ControvcrCie^ as it is managed by the wifer and fober Perfons on borli fides, zrfly^ When tlie con- fequences are fuch as do not 6^:%^ and as it were appear upon the/r/? nem. That is, when they do not imnte^ {liately flow from the Principles or Pofitions laid down, but mufl: be drawn from thence by long and laborious DeddU' ons; fuch which a wife Man cannot cafily forefee : In this Cafe a Man may not charitably be urged with them, if after the difcovery he fincerely difowns them. And yet even in this Cafe a Man may endeavour to confute fuch an Opi- nion \\'hich he takes to be falfe, by fhewing the confe- quences which attend it. But this properly refpcds the Error^ without any rigid Cenfure, and much lefs a Condem- nation of //^^ Per/on. The reafon of this is evident, becaufe the matter in debate is not (o plainly declared, but that it may admit of different Explications, without any Injury to the common Faith : and this may be the Cafe of tliat Article concerning ChrlsTs defcent into Helii But in Fu}idjmental Articles no fuch Excufcs can be of- fered, nor ought to be allowed. All fuch pretences are cut off', by the plain Exprejfions of Scripture, joined with the Declarations of the Catholick Church ; w^hereby the Senfe : of the Article, after long and ferious debates hath been de- termined, and by which all Lovers of Truth and Peace fliould think themfelves concluded. All oppofition either to ^ the Senfe or Words of fuch Articles is inexcufable, as being , the effed: of Pride ^ Ohfiinacy^ Fa^ion^ a turluknt Temper^ tho' ' cloaked and covered over with the fpecious pretences to . Charity and Moderation. And, in fhort, it is for thcmoft part, to be refolved into Heretical pravity^ which lies at the bottom of all tliis^ and which makes Men refufe the Langua%$- • a .^ * [70] •for the fake to be lure of tlie DodriKes of t\-^ ri, i i - . ^ hath, as I faid before, beea contri^d and fet^tcl Sm ^'^^ and mature Debates, as the left Fence for rS 1 '°"S »4//m had been wont to be eiDrerTed ,t .1 V? '? '"'"■ that was an fia/^f,,^,; wwd Ete^b^^Sre S ^"^ time. And thereiore his FripnrI -iu^ c ^^fi'"'"*^ his boured all he could To skreeS fSlublfk'S^^^'^ ^■ was but too partial in his Favour was vTrv^S ^r 'V'^' ""'^ therefore in very earneft and SaTJ f ,t eZ^ ^'"''^^ voured to perfuade him not to dec£ t fat C J- 1" r'" quently and expreHv wis rmHf. ,.r:^fl °'^^' ^'"<^h fre- , and E,clef,fL wS^blfnlf^fe^b^ltt ff'" ihat therefufal of this Word wnnW S u^^ ^"^ of them, of Pnde, Vanity, Concit tr^pp^^^^ Notions to thejudgmentofallwho wenr ri°^" %"'ar thereby difturbed the Peace and Tr° r r^ '^'"^^ ^"d The Epift. inferted Tnto the !3i Z/^?"'^'^ of the Church. ^•-^ lA is well worth the Retdit ^^r"',"-^ ^^'''^"'> prevail. This obftinate Man cfntmLed SllTo Ih^ .T'^ oppofe the Fahh and Z^«^«^,. of tl e Chu cb t ^ -"^ .'° was at length depofed by VclS 3 ,3e whol^'r.''' \" Iiath fmce ratified that Sentence bv ?i, ^''^7'^°^f Church what the Fathers there aflSSed did Ute^^^^^^^ °^ Nefionus a Heretkk ' ""'^^ reputing - . termine f V V I termine its ifignlfication, we cannot tell how far it may reach',% nor whom it may comprehend ,• and' thereto) e ir :s neceiiary it fliould a little !;e crviu^cd into. - By K? therefore doi'h hi^ VrJih}p mean wc of the Pe- jormeA Churches : Tf fo, I tljink I may venture to fc-y, i liat he hath not any jnft warrant to include them. Look but into the Hamcny of thnr CcnfeiTJcns, and you will find them readily declaring their h-.arty Agreement and Confent vi^h the Ancient Churchy approving the Dodrine cxprcflod in the Creeds, eftablifhed in tlie Four Geufr^j/ Coukc}/s ; condenming. the Hereftes which were there declared contrnry to tlie Catholick Faith. Some of them particularly naming ikflo- rius with a deteftation of his Opinions^ and at the f;me tim.e making honourable mention of St. Cyil and the Council of, Ephefus. 5- The Church of EnihnA' fure can be as little fufpedicd of an indifference vn this matter, as any of the otXvtx Forei^- Reformed ; which hath upon all occafions declared fo great a Reverence for the Difcipline, Do^lrine^znA' Decificns of the- Ancient Church. Our Articles indeed do make no particu- lar mention of tfeftorius, but they do in cxprefs terms ap- prove of the Three Creeds ; in the latter of whidi, -viz. the ■ " Athanifijn^ the Exprcflions made ufe of to explain the Do- (ftrine of the Incarnation are, as his Lordftiip himfelf con- kSts, p. io6. diredly levelled againft the Nejiorian and? Eatychian Herefies. \ think therefore I may venture to fay^ that we, viz. the Members and Sons of this Clwrch, are not of the number of thofe who are thus unconcerned in this matter of Fad : we have a greater regard for the Catholick Faith ; a greater reverence for the Four General Councils, and' particularly that of Ephefus, and the Fathers aflemblcd in it,, tlien to think that they did raHily and uncharitably, without due care to inform themfdves, and without juft reafon, con- demn an innocentMnn, and depofe him, and tranfmit him. with a mark of Infamy to all future Ages. Sociaians andi tlisr Ci \ " ■»' .^y-^r--^j n the Followers of Epifcop'm may perhaps make fuch Refledi- ons ; out thofe who are found Members of this Churclk God be thanked, are not of that number. I cannot then imagine in whofe name and by whofe war- rant his .LordJhii> fpeaks, w'hen he pronounces fo pofitively, that m are not concerned in this matter of Fa£l, Perhaps he doth not declare the Scnfe of this whole Church, but only of thofe feveral Bi/hops and learned Men who have perufed and approved this Expofuion. His Lordjhlp names but few, and the reft are comprehended under that general Cha- rafter o'i feveral Bfops and a great many learned Divines - and therefore I can fay nothing of Perfons whom I have not' the honor to know, and from whom therefore I can have no .warrant to fay any tiling expreHy, either one way or other. But there is one Perfon indeed named, for whom I dare venture to fpcak, or rather tbo' dead, he yet fpeaks for him. felf in the Wntmgs which he hath left behind him, viz. Bilhop Stillingfleet ; I am fure he did not difcover this Jndlf- ference. For m his Book of Idolatry beforementioned, he ftill in conformity with St. Cyril and the other Fathers of that and the after Ages, reprefents the Opinion o^ Neflorius ay that which did divide and feparate the tivo Natures in Chnit. That the Humane had no hypoftatical Vnion with the Dtvtne. That according to the Neftorians Chrifi ivas to he confideredas a Humane Perfon. That he was not God, tut homo Deiferus, in regard of the Humane Nature which had the Dtvme Nature prefent, but not united to it. That their Worjhtpptng of Chrifi was upon that fcore unlawful r that thev ivere condemned for it hy the Chrifllan Church, lecaufe they did fuppofe only a real Prefence, hut no real Vnion hetween the two Natures tnChrrfi. And in fliort, that there were two thinzs which not only particular Perfons, hut the whole Church, hlamed /« Neftonanifm. ift r/,. Heretical Opinion, and, ^dly, the Idolatrous Pr.J,cepurf}.ant to that Opinion^ viz. of the Repa- ration of the two Natures in Chrift. p. 846, 847. And in his >- -y his vindication of the Trinity^ p. 1 9. He reprefents the opiniott of the Cerinthians , that they held an iUapfe of the ^ye^ upon our Saviour y and fo made him a kind of a God by his prefence^ as, (aith he, Nefiorius did afterwards. Now he that had thefe notions of iV^(?r/W and his opi- nion, could not poffibly, one would think, fliew himfeU fb unconcern d in this matter, as to leave it to the difcretion of his Readers, to judge as they pleafed, and either to condemn or abjolve him indiflFerently as they thought fit. On the other hand 'tis certain, he hath determined in fa- vour of the Churchy and that it his Readers will be govern d by his judgment, they iikewife muft think, that Nefloriui was ufed according to his deferts; i.e. hewasjuftly con- demn'd for advancing an Heretical opiniony and promoting an Idolatrous praHife confequent thereupon. Nay if his Lordjhip had not made this declaration, I think I might have ventur'd to fay , that he himfelf is not of the number of tho(e who are unconcern d in this matter. For tho' he doth not exprefs hmifelf direcflly in favour oi Nefiorius y yet he hath faid enough to let his Readers underftand what thoughts he had of him, both as to his opinion^ and the ufage he met with from the Council of Ephefus. Befides what hath been faid relating to this matter in the foregoing papers, I fhall confider both thefe a little farther. His Lordjhip explains this Article of the Incarnation^ as hlefiorius did, by an indwelling and inhabitation of the Eternal Word in our Saviour , which doth import a prejence^ but no real union between both natures in Chrift. This farther ap- pears, beyond all poffibility of a reply, from the conformity which he declares was between the indwelling of the word in Chrtfly and its inhaitation in the Cloud of Glory y where to be fure there was only a local prefencey but no perfonal union. This was his Lordjhip' s conftantand fettled notion 9 not deliver d at random, or taken up in halt, but the refult of ierious ^ K ' ' and Xi'' m izi kx -Ht ^ t- 4nd mature deliberation ; fo often repeated by him upon all occafions, wherever this Article of Vhe WawK X,or^&/^ or mtfiak^ hu meantng. As appears by the tefti- monies before cited out of his £./.;ft«/Ld Difcom-fe to BtJhoj>JVtUtams p. pj. where he tells us, */&«•.»«, „, olhZ "^"^ ^'^.^htch , be „arjbtp of our Saviour cl^^ n did in the Cloud in the days of their forefathers jS cannot concnve there v^ns any other Idea of this mmerL tku i»hch was both Juttable to thetr doHrines, and the praStfe^fthJr forefathers during the frft TempU. The confe^S of tS ZTu'l r^' •?'''" ''■" '" °"^ Saviour not only .t„j! tm^es but hkewife tn>o perfons. For as the Eternal wZznd the Cloud were ^n^o Hypofiafes. whereof th^ r.JJ i X :^,'^'?;; of God Jas/„>, with a «l^ ill' wiio was actuated and influenced bv him ^\.\. . ^ 7 j ^ the charge of iV^/^«, of ol^as le' tdit LrAnd fLordp^p ,s fo far from difown.ng this, that he repre- n^on ofrSh"'';""' "^'^'^yet'was d.e conSLn o'^. Sin kV 5r ; ^* ^ '*"' ""^ unexpluablefMtltty. For ^ m h,s difcourfe, p 3 3. he exprelfes himfelf. Le nZ •^t m""'''T ^T/"'^ '"JiatetheformalnottonofapZ i LTaa ""^J^mfidto conjiflm a Rectal fubfifience htZt -/%/)rXt' '^ ^"^-' '-re^n%hadtt r jf^j^j^infty or jt$ own* This was the conftant objection */: V y C7y] objeftion of tlie Nejlorians^ which bis Lord/hip makes hii| own, and thinks it unanfwerable. He faith, indeed, thatm Hypefiatical union was propofed as a term fit to explain this by^ that is, the human nature was believed tofubfifi by the fubfiflencB of the word: But, faith his LordQiip, it was not eafy to make this more intelligible by offering a notion full as unintelltgible as it felf Thus doth he expofe the dodrine of the Church | as an intricate and abftrufe notiofn, formed not to explain^ but to perplex a point, in which he faith, we ma) arrive at dijltna Ideas^ or Jomewhat very like them. And it muft be allowed, that the doftiine o^ Inhabitatien is a more intelligible notion^ than that of a Hypofiatical union. But this will not be fufEcient to determine in favour of the former againft the latter: for what is eafieft reconciled to our notions is not alwas moft aggreeable to truth. The Church hath thought fb in this matter ; for (he hath de- clared for the Hypoftatical umon-y but hath always judged the doftrine o( Inhabitation to be an Heretical opinion^ and hath accordingly condemned it in the perfons of Cerinihus^ Paulus of Samofatay Neftorius^ Photinusj as we heard before. So much of the opinion ofNeJlorius^ Let us next confider whether his Lordjhip is altogether unconcerned at his t^fage^ whether he were mifunderfiood or illufed or not. 1 fliould fancy he is not ; becaufe be plainly intimates, that it may be made to apppear by numerous ci- tations taken out of his writings that he did not hold the opi- nion for which he wascenfured and depofed: and then to be fure he could not but think he was not rightly und^r- floods and very unjufily punijbed. In his Letter to BtJhopWd^ tiams^ being charged with favouring the opinions of iVi?/?a- rim by his Socinian adverfary: he makes this reply, p. pj*: we do ttot certainly know what Neftorius his opinion was. If (b, no doubt his true opmion was not rightly underftood, becaufe it is not certainly known what it was. The infe- rence that every body muft draw from hence is,that he was ill, K 2 and •'1 ■*P*W>il ■ ■ » ^Bi >■* [ and ih^eed feSr^ar oiifty ufed^to be condemn d thus at random. The Faihers aflembled at Ephefus aded carelelly and incon- liderately , but this poor man felt the fad eflFedts of their rafhnefs and inconfideration. But why doth his Lordjhif fay, that ne have no ceriaia knowledge $f the opinion of Nefitrritus ? He may much better iay that we do not know what the dodrinesof ?Waj &j- mofatenusy Arrim and Photmus were. For we have a very confiderablecolled:ion of his works, viz. his Epiftles^ Ser- mons^ Dtjcourfej prefer ved in the writings of St. fyr/7, inferted many of them in the Hiftory of the Council of Ephefus^ tranllated by Mariuf Mercator into Latin; and both Latin and Gree\^ publillied by Garnerius the Jefuit ; where every rea- der may without much trouble eafily confult them: and by them we may readily and certainly find his opinions, and have greater opportunities of knowing them than thofe of any of the other /i?r^//r^/,condemn'd in the three other g^w^- ml Councils : fb that if this want of knowledge of his opi- nions be an excufe, the other Heretuks have a much bet- ter claim to it than Neflorius. The Bifhop proceeds. If the doBrine of Nejioritu rvas^ that he did not allow the term of the Mother of God to be due to the hie fed Virgin^ and that all that rvas farther charged upon him^ ivas only a confequence drawn from that , then this was no heinous matter ; No ! I thought it had -, and by all that I havefaid before, the contrary, by this time, I hope is made fully to appear! flithink that both his denyal and the confequences drawn from it were of a very heinous nature. His refufal of the word.>07i)(9f was an infinite difparaoe- ment toourbleflTed Saviour, becaufe thereby it appea?d^ that He who who was the Son of the Virgin, as our Saviour certainly was, was not the Son of God. It contradided the holy Scriptures, which exprefiy affirm that what was born of her was the Son of God y and confequently, that the Firgtn was really, what Elizabeth Hyjl^d her, the Mother of her Lord. This V / [ 77 J This word in the New Teftament was equipollent, as his %ordfbip hath obfer ved , to the word God. For the Jews, who put the old Teftament into Greek tranjlated the name Jeho- vah by the word Kug/of, fo that according to the Jews phrafeology^ Yju^og and Jehovah were but one and the fame things Difc. p. 3f . Not now to repeat the other pernicious confequences of this denyal before-mention d. This flieweth, that to ^ive or refufe'this name to the blefled Virgin, was no indifferent matter. It was a thing of the higheft importance, as St. * Cyril told the Fathers at the opening of the Countil; not a bare contention about an infignificant word : * oLTncg nfuv o zj& '^ Tn^^f iy&v. It was that upon which the whole controverfy between the Catbo- licks and Nefiorians did depend. And therefore it will be- come us to be in good earneft concern d likewife about it. But faith his Lordjhip. Tl?e doBrine laid to the ctkrgeof Neftarius^ wasjuflly condemrid. But I pray what was that.^ was it not the doctrine of Inhabitation , and dividing the natures in Chrift, and thereby making ^2r(?/^^r/fl«/, two Chrijls> and is not this the very fame which we find fault with in the Expojition ? But taking it for granted, that the doArine condemn d by the Churcli was bad , but that it was un- juftly charged upon Neflorius^ what will the confequence of this be, but that the Fathers at Ephefus muft be reputed a company of ignorant^ ra/b, and withal malicious men^ who without due information and a previous knowledge of his opinions, condemned an innocent man, and faftned what confequences they pleas'd upon his words, which mightbe capable of a right and fair conftrudion. '^They aiftcd with* out judgement and without charity j and being hnrryed on by 1 know not what furious paflions, they culled out an Concil. Eph. p. fo^.. Edit. Labb. 2 eTw (Ttupaf hvopivy ov^^hfhv A-mtf ry^f Cyrill. Epift. ad Johan. Antioch apud Cone. Eph> p. 1 108. innocent V i<4^-^^ .eir f [78'] innocent man to be the objed of their raee Th^*^'^!? the Theater wooryed and torn in pieces on next to chcf,urG>Ms> c,« ,£ J! . JS f "'jeratwn withoTtSowWgt^'^lth'lV^eJfjr""^^^^^ ^ -' pendious or fuccef^fiiM «,. 7/-, ^ "° more com- lick Faith? thaTbvuLT.^ ^bverting the Catho- were aflembled ' '^ '^^ ^""""^^ '" ^'hich they tainty arifes fron?^Ser ^rln/^^/''^^^.^''"^^ and cer- flue„ceuponusa„d.«.^.>.>„. TniXre^I^toraVet the '^^^'^'■' K \ [79] the efteem and reverence which hath generally; and upon veryjuft reafons, been paid to them, will at long run affed the authority of the holy Scriptures themfelves, and con- iequently the truth of the mylteries of our holy Religion Vhich are therein contain'd. And indeed next to the holy Scriptures, the uniform o/iwon and /raff//^ of the early pro- feflors of the Chriftian Religion, are the greateft confir- mation ot the truth of our dor<7^^^ apunijbment. Th^ J^emonflr. indeed llyle it papna vicarta ^ by which an unwary reader would be apt to imagine that they meant that our Saviour underwent a punifhment vice noflra^ in our ftead. But when we come farther to confider it, we find it amounts to no more, than this, that hisfufferings were ' affliSions > I V < ^ affliSions or calamities which he endur'd indeed for our fakes and in our room ; but that his death was not truly a pu- nijbmenty but vf2isloco or vicepoewzy fervd inftead of a pu- nifliment, and which God was pleased to efteem and ac- c^t for fuch. This was the conftant and fettled opinion otEpifcopius as well as Socinus^ that it is abfblutely unlaw- ful that one man, upon any pretence whatfoever, fliould be punijbed for the fins of another. The fecond thing in which they agree is, that when they fpeak of a fatisfaHton made to God by the death and fuf- ferings of our Saviour, they both mean that this fatisfa- d:ion was made to the mil and not to the juftice of God. That God was well pleafed with the obedience of Chriflin his patient enduring ot fufferings, and fubmitting to death in confirmation of the truth of his dodtrine, is acknowledged by Socinus and his followers i nay fo highly fatisfed with it, that for the fake 'of that he was willing to reward him with the power of forgiving fins. And the l^monflr. when things come to be examin'd, mean little more, tho' their exprefl5ons feem fometimes to carry this matter a little higher. According to them, there is no true fatisfaSion made to the Juftice of God. For Juftice cannot be fatis- fied but by a punifhment ; there is a neceflary and -eflfen- tial relation between thefe two. But the death of Chrift, if they are to be credited, was not truly a punifhment. *Tis true God was pleafed to accept of the death of Chrift as a facrifice for the expiation of fin, and upon that fcore to releafe the finner from the obligation to punifh- ment. But all this is to be refolv'd into the divine plea- fur e and acceptation. The fufferings of Chrift were no true punifhment^ but ferved vice poeniey as we heard before : and much lefs were they a punifhment equivalent to the guilt I Potefl: Chriftus certo fenfu did loco noftro punitus, quatenus poenam vi- cariam, pro divino beneplacito fibi imponendam, hoc eft, afflidionem, qua pocnae vicem fuftinuit, in fe recepit. Umh. TheoL chrift, lih, 3. ca^, ii./e3.%, L and AiN -ttA. JW. , [ 8i ] and demerit of maakind. Now with relation to both thefc particulars his Lordjbips expofition is deficient, and there- fore cannot be pafled by without notice and diflike. For firft, when he comes to fpeak of the facrifice of Chrift, he doth not any where diremijkment ^ which yet was neceflary to M done to guard it from the treacherous explications of the J{emonfi. as well as the plainer denyal of the Socinians. ' Tis true , in ftating the general notion of an expiatory facri- fice p. fj. he doth acknowledge , that , according to the nohon entertain d of it by Jews and Gentiles, the fin ofoneper- fm was transferr'd on a man or a beafly who was upon that devoted and offer d ub to God, andftferdin the room of the offending perfon. That by this oblation the puni/hment of the ^ mas latd upon the facrifice, and an expiation thereby made for the fin. That tbefe phrafes in the old Tefiament whereby the facrtfices tPere fatd to be tffer'dfor the fin, or inftead of fin , and in the name, or on the account of the finner ^c. are all to be apply d to the death of Chrift in the New Tefiament. •^iit this is no more than what hath been affirmed by ' Lmbroch (an Authour well known to, and in no finall efteem with his Lordlhip) who allows that Chrifts death was a facrifice; that iu his fufferings there was a permuta- turn of perfons , he ftanding in our room and ftead; that he took «^ the guilt of finners upon hirafelf, and fuffered, eo- rum loco , in their place the punijhment that was due to them. That the Wood of Chrift was the price of our re- ^Pf^op 5 that he was made a Curfe by undergotng an accurfed death for us j we finned and he underwent that death which our fins had defervd. But all thefe pompous expreffions n^ ft*^'?^ ftiit facrificium venun ac jwoprie fie didum pro peccatis noftris Chnftus faduseft mdedictio pro nobis. 'SaJigui, Chrifti fuit red*«^pSpre: tjun^^uod pro nobis perfofutum eft. /ii.l cap. lo. xz. Dominus Jefus^to- pronwntum amorem erga peccatores teftatur quod omnia eorutn peccata in fe oaasfcrat, eorumqiie pomaj ipforum loco pendat. Hid. cap. lo. con- V i; concerning the expiatory vertue of Chrift's death, when he conies to explain his true fenfe of ity in fumum abetmty yzr nith into the (oft air and come to nothing. For this punijhment which Chrift underwent for us, in the conclufion is found only to be ff-avijjima affliSlio^ an affli<9:ion which was pa*na vicaria^ qua pcena vicem fujlinuit. And if this be all, then it is certain that his death was no proper facrifice, but he was only reputed ' tanquam piacularis viStma-, and his oblation of himfelf was only locofacrifieiiy and which did facrificii vices fuftinere. For in every true ex- piatory facrifice , the punijhment of the criminal was really^ trausferr'd upon the man or beaft that fufFer'd in his room. But here in the death of Chrift, there was Ibmething that look'd like a facrifice^ but not one truly (b call'd ; fomething that look'd //% a punijloment^ but really and truly was only an opinion or calamity which he underwent for our fakes. Now fince the atonement^ reconciliation^ and redemption which our Saviour hath purchafed for us, depends upon the nature of the puntfhment which he fuffer d , the facrifice which he offer a, and price of our redemption which he paid : if thefe are hwtfi^rative and metaphorical^ all that is built upon them muft be fb too. So that all the benefits which we thought our Saviour by his death had procured for us, at lengtli are, by this account, refblvdinto pBion and figure. Here was fomething that looked //% an expiation^ that re^ fembUd an atonement^ that had the likenefs and appearance of a redemption j but were not truly and properly fuch. So that, by this account, the facrifice of Chrift refembled tJiofe of the Law, where there was the Image andjbadotv of thefe good things^ hut not the fubftancs and reallity. . To proceed, his Lordlhip s expofition is deficient in the fecond place, that tho* he acknowledges the death of Chrifk to be a facrifice, yet he doth not inform his Readers that '■'1 I So Lim^, exprefles it, and his blood was tanquam redemptionktretsum. Eod. cap. L 2 thereby [84-] thereby a proper and perfeU JatisfaUim was made to the jufiice of God : this was in a manner as neceffary to be inferted, in order to give us a clear and full information of the redemption of the world by the fufferings of Chrift, as that thofe fufferings were truly a facrifice and a punifh- ment : becaufe without this JatisfaWton^ we defpoil the fuf- ferings of our Saviour of that great 2LnA fuperlative dignity with which hitherto they have been inverted by the Chri- ftian Church, and thereby we weaken the efficacy of them and entirely overthrow their merit. Now to aflert the internal and Jlmighty value of the death of Chrift, in which the merit of it doth confift, is as ne- ceffary, in a manner, as to declare that he died for us; and that with relation to God, our Saviour, and our felves. ^Firft with relation to God, and that whether we confider his Honour^ or Juthority^ or laftly his Jufttce^ which is the attribute that takes particular care of both, and therefore was principally regarded in this whole oeconomy. It is confefled by his Lordfhip and by Limb, and the other Remonftr. That it was not Juitahle to the Majefiy of God as Governour of the worlds nor to the Authority of his Larvs^ that pardon Jhould be granted to fmners ^ except in Juch a way as might demonstrate the guilt of fm and Gods implacable hatred of it. Now this could not be done without a pumjhment^ God's hatred being not to be effedually demonftrated but by it. For which reafons the T{em. and his Lordjhip will allow that it was not fuflScient for ^ Chrift onfy to dy for our good, except he fhould likewife dy tn our room I and endure either pumjhment or fomethin^y that might be like it, and inftead of it : fo the ^m. ftiuffle and equivocate in this matter. In general they allow the death of Chrift to he a fa- erifce, in which there was a permutation of perfons , and a tranflation of punijhment , which was neceflary to com- pais the great ends before-mention d , vi^. the fecuring the majejiy \. / \ [8y] majefiy o£ Cod And viruHcating the Honour of hts Government i and as we muft add, the appeafing his Juftice which is the At- tribute that takes care of his Laws and Honour. Now here we fay, that not only a pmijhment, hnt ^n equivalent pump- ment was neceflary, otherwife Jufiice would not have been fully fatisfied: the diftionour caftupon God, by the viola- tion of his Laws and contempt of his authority, could not have been fully vindicated, but this muft have been per- formed by halves, by an imperfeU pumjhment and an mcom- plete fatisfaHion. , r /-> j' It is true his Lordfijip hath other thoughts ot God s Taftice: for in his Dtfcourfe of the death ofChrifiy p. 42- where he handles this matter more largely, and expreffes himfelfmore openly and freely, he affirm^ that to fay that VindiSlive as well as T^munerattngjufitce ts efenttal to hod, if. a [peculation which the Scriptures do not lay before us ; butts one of thofe metaphyfical niceties which the Schoolmen and other writers of pofitive Divinity have laid down, tn which the Sen- pture is Jjolutely ftlent. But I am afraid, if we had time to examine this matter throughly , it would be found to be a dangerous pofition, which befides other inconveniences would be attended with this, w^. that, if believed, it would so a great way to overthrow Gods providence, and to under- mine all natural l^eligion, which is founded chiefly upon the belief, and fears confetjuent thereupon, that men by the light of tezfonhive of God' spunijhingjufiice. But to wave that at prefent j this feems to be very plain, that if the death of Chrift was not equivalent to the deme^ rit of fin, that then the hatredofGod agamft it, and his in- dignation againft finners would not have been fo clearly de- monftrated, as to have filld us with the greateft horrour and amazement at it ; and confequently would not have anfwerd that great defign , which by the confeffion ot Limb, and his Lordptp, God propos'd to himfelf in this wonderful difpenfation j becaufe other inftances of Divine vengeance y / f \ fire from Heaven &c filv^X! .^ ^l^''\^'''^ ^"^"^^a by fin hath been difnWd Ji^i"'' ^^^ ^^^"^^^ of God againlt amazing con viSfc, n n tKTi '''^''''% ^"'^ ^ °^o" e tho* honour'd with 1 i • ^^ Tuffenngs of a/W<. «,^„ added very xtZtoLT"^''-^'""^ ^^^'^^ conjun«aiS ^«^ W#i.i;'^y°j,,^^^ their whow" being in his £X>V ^d Linn'^^'''^^^^^ ^^""'^^^ i" ^hem, the diWwe p/eafuriTJjt-°'' ^"^""^^y 'o be refolv'dinto ^ ?^^. As'thf rcc::'ntrrrar;l-T'^- ^^- Jation ^<, G^ fo likewi^l^rh ^ , "" ^^ ^iven with re- becaufe without it we /oh h "f'^u '° '^ ^^#^ 'S^rW perfea Saviour, and hf, ^?ff '" °*.'¥ ^^^nour of beinaa' which hath always bet "foS^^^.f^^'^^ ,^W «W JI^.^ Church J who wLe alwavs wl. ° " ^y '^^ ^'^'•ifti^n to the mercies of God thiShT" i° ':<^co'"'nend themfelves of his Son Now X r^:^^''^^^^^ r^torjous of pardon, and I hone !£ / ^^"^ are truely «,,. God, or only oafs a rom . ^ ^"^^ "^"^ P^^^^aricate with our addrefres^o^l:4rwteur"'K"^ ^^^'^^ there muft be an equality Jr.r. f' '^^' P^^^^^^ • ^hen tween the pardon of fin^ard th^ '^^l*" ^ '^"^^^ be- was purchafed, which was tha a'P""'^*""^' ^^ ^^'^^^ it rjtor^ous, it muft be thel^w T' ^^"''' and if m.. demption. -'^ "'''' a^^uate price of our re- P'^p^^ntThth^^^ 'H¥"; ^hich demanded ^s .abrolutely^cefllry b ti^c ?e'; ?, f "^ T^^ ^"^^^^^^^ fhe other handf if^ this wSr -'^^^ 1^^ ^^erd. On overthrown, - Ae >.:4/c!}^Xrr fut^^^^^^^^^ fame [87] - fame level with the facrifices of the old Teftament, as ta their internal valae i becaufe the efficacy of both of them, by this account, is owing only to the external acceptation of God: which how highly derogatory it is to the honour of our Saviour and the noblenefs of his oblation appears at firft view. For at this rate we might fay that it was not pojftblefor the blood of Chriji to take arvay Jini that it could not purge the confcience from dead Tvorl^jy if confider d as to its own ver- tue and efficacy. 'Tis true it did fo, but this was owing purely to the dwine appointment and pleafure : and if God had fo pleafed J he might have accepted and been fatisfy'd with the blood of a beaji in compenfation for that of a man; and then in that cafe^ it might have been faid that the ^/W of a bull or a goat did take away fin^ throughly purge the con» Jcience^ and that one fuch offer ing did per feH for ever thofewha were fanBifyd by it. Thefe are ftrange pofitions, the very mention of which is enough to ftrike any Chriftian ear with horrour and de- teftation i and yet they are confequences which unavoida- bly flow from that opinion which founds the whole efficacy of Chr ill's death in the divine pleafure and appointment. By which it fufficiently appears, that this is a very wrong, and not only {o , but a very dangerous ftate of this matter. And yet as dangerous as it is, it is no more than what neceflarily flows from that other notion, whereby the ^/i/i- nity of our Saviour is made to confift: in a divine prejence and inhabitation^ becaufe hereby the Son of the Virgin is made a dtjiin^ perfon from the Son of God^ who was join d to and dwelt in him. And if fo, the Son of the Virgin who feed his blood upon the crofs being but a man^ ( for he could be no more notwithflianding the indwelling of the Eternal word) it was not poflSble that his punijhment (fiippofing that his death trucly fuch ) could be a fufficient compenfation to the jutfice of God for the fins of the whole world. " My [88 ] DUh^nwf^''""^'' ^'f f fl'o"^ both in his Expojaion and .^'i'l^^^ ""P*'" ^ '¥in^ion ofperfom in ou/saviour and that it was only a man who dieS fir our fins. In the Expofition he is reprefented as a good man, ,^1; ii^T Vrit^^r^i '" ^^ ^"^y- ''"y *' "'"k him a complete facrfice, he underwent preat agonies ti his rmnd, ^vhenthoCeemt In theDifcourfe more plainly; that there rvl a divm/Jr fon m rvhom drvehthe Eternahvard, r.ho after he had IZ^fL doBr:neandfet a pattern ofperfeaholyneftoth;^^^^^^^^ ciuion cructfyed hm : he m the meantime bearinz be/ides the Ji Perf^acTarL, f"^"'' ''J&^'^on to his Fathers mU] and a perfe^ chartty to hts perfecutors. This was fo pkafini to God nay, exalted hm on high, giving to hm even as he was man nil power both m Heaven and Ear tt /,«.«.„„./,.„ !.'^.^^'".^"' ''^ *»J. L ^L ■ r, 6 ' S*'""^ lu mm even as he was man nil Po^^both m Heaven andEartt but upon the accouTo^the of- fer d to the world thf> hnr^^.. .f c^. A^.j • , .7 ^7 '^^ ^T the V:,-'^ * ^L /I » '^ • ^^^ 'v'''^ *^^^ account oftt ht ferd to the world the pardon of fins together with aU other bleffingsrvhtch accompany it m his GoLl refigna- \ V ■ C«9] refignation to the will of God : this was (b pleafuig to God that upon the account of it he honour d this man even oi ^ /uchy with all power in Heaven and Earth; which being' Infinite and Omnipotent ^ one would think a finite perfin fhouldnot be capable of: but fb it was according to this explication ; in which his Lordjhip hath the joint fuffrage and concurrence of all the Socinians ia confirmation of his opinion: Together with this power ^ the pardon of fins is tendered to the world, attended with all other the benefits of the new Covenant, which Chrift hath purchasd, by hit obedience to the will of his Father ; but yet fo that the whok efficacy of it muft ( and according to the expofition cannot otherwife be accounted for) be refolvd into the divine plea- Jure and acceptation. But how on the other hand, when we afcribe this Almighty vertue to the death ^f Chrift, which made it an Equivalem ranfome for the redemption of the world, we are bound to affirm that this is owing to the divine nature^ which w%sfuh' fiantially united to the humane in which he fuffer d : the per/on who dyed for us being God as well as Man, So the Fathers aflembledat Ephefus when they aflert the merit of his fuf- i^rings againft Nejioriusy refolve it into the perfonal union of God>nd Man. It was God who fuflfer d, and dyed, and therefore his fufferings were Alfi^cient. On the contrary, if the Eternal Word or Son of Go* was only prejent with and dwelt in Chrift, then forafmudi as he muft be but a man who dyed and Ihed his blood for us, ( for inhabitation falls far fhort of a perlbnal union ) . it was not poflible that the death of this humane per Jon could make a fvil and perfeB fatisfa^ion. For how could the life oi z Jingle man be equal in value to the lives oi all mankjntd which were forfeited to Juftice ? If his fufferings were;/i- tisfoBoryy this fatisfa8ion mv^ be made to thegWiwiZand jleafure, and not to the Mice ofGodj as the Socin. and , Rem^ftate this matter. That is, God out of his fiiigular M grace »'. 0: Iv, '"1 '^ ">;■» •"^^^'^-''^ [ 90 ] • grace and favour was pleas'd to accept of a fmaU part in- ftead of the whole fumm that was due to him, with which he was contented^ tho* it were but inconfiderable, and but z meer trifle in comparifbn of what he might have demanded. But this account is highly derogatory to the honour of our bkjjed Saviour^ as we have plainly fhew'd: and infinitely weakens the hopes and fecurity of us poor finners, which was the third thing to be confiderdin thisdofStrineof the la- tisfadtion. Vor our fecurity is chiefly founded in this, that God is truly and fully fatisfitd by the death of Chrift, fo that if we perform the conditions of the New Covenant, we need not fear any obftrudtion to our pardon from the threatmngs of the LarVy or demands of Jujiice ; for thefe are • as entirely fatisfyd by the death of our Saviour (who was not only a divine perfdn in whom the Eternal Word did vouchfafe to dwell, but one and the fameperfon with him) as if all mankind had dy'd and thereby fallen a facrifice to h\i difpleafiire. In ftiort, his anger is atoned^ his mratb appeajed^ \i\^Juftice fully fatisfy d^ and God and man are now perfeUly reconciled. This was the coaftant opinion of the ancient Church. 'iPhe Chriftians of the firft ages had no other notion, but that he who was their Saviour was their Gody becaufe none who was lefs than he could accomplifti the great work of their Salvation. And there were four things relating to this wonderful difpenfation in which they did all agree , and which they conftantly maintained againft all the Ene- mies of their Saviour. ^ •Firft, That the great end of his coiaiing into the world was that he might be ajacrijice forfn^ and thereby atone the difpleafure ^XiAfatisfy thejuftice of his Father, and re- concile him to mankind , who were obnoxious to his in* dignation, both upon the acccMint of original guik and their , aSkalfins. oJly^ That thi^ Mommmt and Sati^aSHm was made by his ( V [ 91 ] . his undergoing the ptmijbment which was due to oar fins. The Law threatned death to the tranfgreflbrs of it, which therefore muft be executed one way or other. Either the criminal mutt dy or fbme perfon for him. And this our Saviour did. by ftanding in our room and ftead, and en- during not only an affltSlton or calamity^ but a proper pu^ mjbment. For he fuffer d what the Law threatned ; and what is executed in purfiiance of that fan that his death had ir?xwA^ifu2<^K i?iW ruioJi^et r ysmi^Kc^ ; was an opinion current among all Chriftians , not doubted of, and much lefs deny'd by the Neprian He- reticki themfelves , who did not proceed fo far in oppoli- tioa to our Saviour as to difparage the dignity and weakerif mlw 7P 5iidof . fii p^ AY^iraf vou-m iw/m, ynif diYiu^ioy ^kmvTUv ^aw< -A Mfxa Tfif dCfOA^ii-m ^v^TQ 3*Ttf7»f , rf pji ^^f eewtw Wiok Ww)»«7». So'Theod at Ancyr. and St. C^//arguc againft ihfiorius in the Council olEpbefus. M 2 ^hc k * I "'«ll^•¥ ^^^v^^^^^^w^ Y\ the efficacy of his fufferings as the Sociniam and J^emon/fr. have done. This was indeed the neceflary confequence of their opinion, but never deliver'd by themindireiSt terms. But times are alter'd and with them opinions likewife. What was accounted «3//Winthofe earlier ages, is by many re- puted Orthodox in ours : and what was then look'd upon ta be an important and facred truthj is now ridicul'd and cxpos'd under the contemptible name of the doBrine ofEqui- vaunts. ■' r ^i% ^^^^ ^"'^^ °"'" S^v'°"i" "lade fuch a full and complete JattsfaittmyXX. was a clear proof of his Divinity. For how could the fufferings of cm man be equal to the punifliment, and thereby fatisfy thejuftice of God for thefins of aUmankind> The fufferings of Chrift did fo indeed , and this was an argument of their fuperlative worth and vertue ; but their dignity was owing to the Divine nature which was united to the Humane. > qcLmt^ x^/^i -duU ^wUtfiiv j mi'^ x^^S tlJi mtvr7tTSTet>yKa.Tiip^f^i ''mai^f ^ipotf {mpixaauv, but which did by many degrees ex- ceed It. For the dodrrine not only oi Equivalents^ but of pperahundants , was the current opinion of the Ancient Church. His Lord/hip indeed hath very different appre- henfions of things from thofe Ancients. For in his Difc. p. 42. he tells us. That to affirm that a perfon of an infinite no- ture was only capable of aBs of infinite value, and that fuch a o»ewas neceffaryfor the expiation of fin, is one of thofe metaphy- 'fical jpeculattons that the Scripture doth notfet before us And tn his Letter to Bp. miltams, p.91. ThedoBrwe of equiva- lents IS reckon d among the niceties of the Schoolmen: a matter not revealed m Scribture j no part of the doBrine of our Church, which re/Is onlytn the general notion of expiation and reconciling us to hod. That Grotius managed the controverfy meerly in order to » Sic Theod. Anqrr. apud Cone. Eph, ajert > V C93] affert the expiatory vertue of this facrifice , without injifling on thofe metaphyfical niceties and notions which had been introaucd into it by Anfelm^ it feems^ in the end of the i xth Century j with which the 'Primitive Church was not acquainted. Who would not now imagine when he reads thefepaflages and finds his Lordjhip fb pojitive and peremtory in his affirma- tions, but that thcfe things are juft as he reprefents them. And yet upon examination the ifeader will find the quite contrary to be true. That Grotius when he aflerted the ex^ piatory vertue of Chrift's death, intended fuch an expiation as is performed by a plenary and perfeS fatisfaSion made, not only to the willy but to xhtjufiice ofCod^ and tlierefore cites j4nf elm and jlrnoldus in confirmation of his doctrine; and their notion of expiation was, that it was made by a payment of the whole debt : for they fay our Saviour totius debitifummam reddidit^ ^plus qtiam debetur. So that xho the guilt of fin did abound^ the ^ace of Chrijiy and the merit of PIS Jufferings did fuperabound. . "'Tis true the Schoolmen introduced many niceties into Re- ligion, which the Scriptures do not lay before us, alKl with which the Ancient Fathers were not acquainted. But that this of an equivalent fatisfaBion is one of them we con- ftantly deny. It was always believ'd by the Primitive Churchy and is the known dodrine of ours. Nay they both declare it to be not only a truth y but fb important and neceffary a truthy that without it we can have neither the faithy ixor hope, nor deferve ^/;^ name c/ true Chriftians. Thus St. ' Cyril in a Sermon preached publickly by hint rat Ephefusy tells his Auditors in the words of St, Pauly i Cor* 4.20. That we are bought with a price-, not with corruptible things y fuch as fdver and goldy but -nfjuiea oli/AArty with the precious blood ofChnfiy i Pet. c. i . v. 1 8. The precioufnefs of which he makes, as we heard before, to cpjifift in this, that it was '^ (i\K^f^vii duTiilioy, of equal value to the whole world. Thofib I Vid. Cone- Ephef. par. 2, Ad. I. wha tf .T .^iii^t . .*^JS^t^3R»^\^ 'kMgL- ■\ •^ J*. -».. «r«AA,. Children of perd.tion , a'^TftiE" that dyed K, fi„'/^"f i?f "'"^ "'^' " "«= C'*' ferd, ho»- couM gS be fiS 1 L"T "'««■"' 'hac f„f. vation, and » allourh' " 'H ^'"'"•yft^ry of our Sal- eirely fabrerted T?f *"'f^°f "• "hich are hereby en- Chriftiinsfn" hofe «rivX, °,ST°" ''""'' "f ^'1 8a •he Apoftles. and ta'L,?„S dolt TuS" *!f''"'^ "' larly declard by our ■ Church *""""• cient to Juftify , in nart rhor u ^ ' .^^'' ^PP"r ^"ffi- ^ainft h/s Bolk by ZV^^'j^^Tof'^'^^'' "" '^°"8'^' T/&«< ,/ n^as f, far horn beim^7.«a% .r ^" ^ocation : viz. ' ^'^^ things LJrarlZthlJrl^^^ '*"'''' ^""'"'"'^ ^ine, !/ ,^ f j;: 7 tS^ ^^^J-S^^" and other rece^vd fore of what is faid uno„ rK^' It Examination there- his Lord/hip, icolTdut^Lclrt°^^^^ t''''^' ''^ the Members of the W ^.^^SLreTft? "^" i t -s^ C 9y] jfi. A general accufation broaght by them againft an emment Pre ate without the mention of fpecialties, m# bring them likewife under a charge of /^«»^/ and defaml Urn. It IS requifite therefore that they Jhouid make good thcxtExcepttom, not only by producing particular pallges, but hkewife by offering thofe arguments and proofs upoS which the deceptions were grounded. Again.: There are feveral other perfons who may think thenifclyes concernd in this matter, who, as his Lordlhip tells us in the Preface, which is farther ■ confirm-d fince by one ot his friends, foUicited him to this mdertakinsr : and •per he hadprepar'd thUsmr^he commmtcated his pap^s to fe- veral perfons of great judgment and integrity, and at lafitublilbd th»m with the mofi deliberate care and caution. This being fo thofe other Learned Divines, as well as his Lord/hip, m&Y reafonably exped fatisfa^ion -, who by their follicitation to have this work undertaken before-hand, and approbation of It afterwards, may think themfclves included in this charge. Laftly : 'Tis faid, ^ That the greatefi prejudices are againft the vortter and not agatnfl the work j that the attempt agatnji his Book was a poor matter of difgufi, vphich rvas unbecomingfo great a Body as the Lower Houfe, and which incomlujion wou^refleS upon none but themfelves. All this is faid with great aflurance but with as little regard to truth as there is to the reputation of that Aflembly, which is thus uncharitably refleiaed upon. But when all is done, the truth and jufticeof this chargfe muft be left to the judgment of all impartial Readers, who after they have carefully and calmly compar'd what is, or (Ball be faid on both fides, without pajjion and prejudice, will then be fure to (hew their approbation or diflike of the Expofttiofiy as they fhall find juft reafon. But the judicial and final determmation of this cale, muft be referyed for that place where the accufation firft began, and I Hiilory of the Convocation p. mo. i Ibid. & p, 209. 4 18 > \ «« ■Sf^ [961 that IS the whole Convocation : (I mean if it be thought adviza- ble thatthis workfhould undeigo any other and raorepoblick Examination.) And when that is once pafled, it will have this eflPedr, that it will either end in the ConviBion of aU parties, or at Icaft /3enee all farther debates about this matter. >^ ( FINIS. i