as his Church and his Body then the Son is said to be subject not the Godhead of Christ but the whole Church of Christ which is the Head and Members which then make one Christ It is the Mediatorial Kingdom that shall be delivered up not his Everlasting Kingdom he shall reign in the one till he hath subdued all his Enemies but of the other there shall be no end P. 27. c. 1. The Doctor restrains his Singularity of being the only begotten Son of God to his being anointed before his coming into the World And p. 26. c. 2. he says That anointing was a Complement of the greatest Kindness and Honor that could be bestowed on a Guest and from that Office in Festivals was preferred to a Ceremony for enseating Kings Priests and Prophets and our Lord by it is character'd but indefinitely whether Prophet Priest or King or all I perswade myself that the Doctor learnt this from Crellius on Heb. 1.9 upon which he says Our Saviour received an immense measure of the Holy Ghost but not as the Scripture says without measure but some degrees more than what other Messengers of God received Chap. 7. is to shew That it is no more necessary that we should understand what the Person of Christ is than for a Traveller to understand the Features of the Sun c. Which he says concerning Constantine's calling this Enquiry a Silly Question hath been already considered to which he adds That our Saviour could not require a belief of the whole truth concerning the Dignity of his Person because the Gospel was preached to the Poor And must they says he be excluded from the means of Redemption because they are excluded from the means of understanding the Mysteries of his Incarnation Must they perish for want of such a belief as is morally impossible for them to acquire Ans But is it morally impossible to believe what the Blessed Jesus hath revealed of himself Indeed if the Traveller shut his eyes he may walk in the Dark though the Sun shine clearly on him And is the Traveller benefited only by the light of the Sun doth he owe nothing to the comfortable influence of it Or the Poor to whom the Gospel belongs are they only the Ignorant and Unbelievers Christ tells us That the poor to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs are the poor in spirit such are sensible that they are naturally blind and miserable and poor and naked not such as are rich and increased in Goods and have need of nothing as the Laodiceans Revel 4.17 This is the Doctor 's Pelagian sence which hath led him into other gross Errors The Poor in the Gospel are such as can submit their understanding to the Revelations of God and though with the Blessed Virgin they doubt a while how these things can be true yet they believe them to be true on the Revelation and this is that Humility and Lowliness for which she is commended and this is the Power of the Gospel which is mighty through God to cast down the strongholds and imaginations of every one that exalts himself against the knowledge of God and brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.4 5 6. Is it not necessary we should know him in whom we believe Then is not the knowledge of God necessary Is it not necessary to know him on the knowledge of whom our Hope and Belief of Eternal Life is founded Then it is not necessary to know whether CHRIST or Mahomet were an Impostor and if Mahomet have delivered as good Natural or Moral Precepts as our Saviour hath done we may make him the Object of our Faith and expect Eternal Life by Mahomet as well as by Christ Therefore doubtless it is necessary to believe of Christ as St. Peter and St. Thomas did That he is the Son of the living God our Lord and our God which Flesh and Blood hath not revealed to us and on which Faith Christ hath promised to build his Church They who saw his Miracles and heard his Doctrine confessed that God was with him but in the Confessions of St. Peter and St. Thomas there was something extraordinary which they believed of the Person of Christ P. 32. c. 1. Two Evangelists says the Doctor trace our Lord's Genealogy but as they derive it not from his real but supposed Father so they take two several ways not to satsfie but amuse us The design of St. Matthew was to shew that Christ descended from Abraham and David by Joseph's being of that Tribe viz. of Juda being the natural Son of Jacob to which it is objected That though Joseph more of that Tribe yet Christ could not be so by descent from Joseph who was not his natural Father and by the Virgin Mary he could not be of the seed of David she being of the Tribe of Levi and not of Juda. Vossius recites the Opinion of some Ancients who thought it was enough to entitle Mary to the Tribe of Juda because she married into that Tribe therefore he proves Mary to be of the same Tribe with Joseph because Numb 36.6 It was not lawful for a Virgin to marry out of her own Tribe Nor would Joseph being a just Man have taken one of another Tribe and this practise of marrying in the same Tribe was especially observed where the Virgin was an Heiress that the Inheritance might be kept not only in the Tribe but the Family and therefore they usually married the next of kin the Virgin therefore having no Brother was married to Joseph who was of near consanguinity with her See Vossius's Genealogy And he proves the same Descent of the Blessed Virgin from St. Luke's Genealogy viz. from David to which I refer the Reader But if it he questioned why if Joseph and Mary had been both descended from David why St. Matthew had not named Mary rather than Joseph who was only a supposed Father To this he answers 1. Because the Husband was not to be bard of his Honour 2. It was not the Custom of the Jews to derive the Genealogy from the Woman and the Kinred of Joseph and Mary being well known there was no necessity of mentioning it among the Jews which dwelt in Palestine to whom the Evangelist wrote And they were very curious in preserving their Genealogies and it would much have prejudiced St. Matthew's Gospel if undertaking to prove the Descent of Christ from David he should have failed in that chief design and in the beginning of the Book and doubtless the Jews who were living at that time when he wrote which was about forty Years after our Lord's Nativity had their Genealogy preserved and probably some of our Lord's Kinred then living and they having seen his Miracles by which they were induced to believe him to be the Son of God knew also that he descended of David according to the Flesh as the Gospel teacheth and there was no Objection made to the contrary by Jews
entred into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist And 1 Job 5.7 he plainly asserts the Doctrine of the Trinity There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. It is very observable what Grotius says in the Preface of his Annotations on St. John The Ancients among other causes of St. John 's Writing this Gospel do generally assign this as the chief that he might apply a Remedy to that Poyson which at that time was dispersed in the Church among all that professed the Name of Christ which could be no other than the denying of the Eternal Deity of the Son of God which that Evangelist asserted Now tho' it may seem a superfluous work to enquire into the Opinions of the Author of the Naked Gospel after the Censure of the University the reading whereof may satisfie any Judicious and Impartial Reader yet least I should seem to make an Adversary where I find none and to fight against my own Shadow as against some formidable Monster I shall 1. Consider what the Author hath said to clear himself from the Reasons of that Decree 2. Make some few general Remarks on the design of the Naked Gospel And 3ly More particularly Examine the Opinions asserted or insinuated by the Author In his Vindication p. 4. he declares his Faith to be no other than that of the Church of England and renounceth any word which in that or any other Book may seem to contradict it The Contradiction is not seeming but real and differs as much as Time doth from Eternity or the Doctrine of the Church of England of which I have given an account from the Arrian and Socinian Heresies if he renounceth any thing he must renounce almost all but how he will do it so as to remove the Scandal from the Church of England which as Monsieur Jeru observes is now conceived to be tainted with Socinian Doctrines from such Writings as this of the Naked Gospel I cannot well conceive unless he disclaim his being a true Son of the Church of England He says The Author of that Book is so far from denying the Divinity of Christ that he plainly asserts it But what Divinity is that is it the Eternal Godhead and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father This is not to be found yea it is the whole design of the Author to impugne it he grants him no other Divinity than the Arrians did of a created God nor indeed so much for he speaks of our Saviour under the same Notions and Expressions as Socinus and Smalâ—ius did granting him a Divinity but not a Deity of which more hereafter But he would prove his Assertion from these words of his That the Author of our Gospel was not only great but infinite But the Question is whom he means by our Author whether God the Father the prime or God the Son as the immediate Author for thus the Moral Law was given by Moses yet God was the prime Author and in this sence an Arrian may and the Socinians do say Christ waâ— the Messenger of God and received all his Commands from God and so the Author of the Gospel in the Socinians sence is infinite for thâ—s Crellius on Heb. 2. v. 3. says Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel as neither were the Angels of the Law but God was the prime Author of both the Law and Gospel though the Law was published by Angels and the Gospel by Christ so that Christ was no otherwise a Law-giver in publishing the Gospel than Moses was in proclaiming the Law which Crellius in his Book de Uno Deo endeavours to maintain at large and in the same sence I fear the Doctor calls the Author of our Gospel infinite viz. that God the Father is the Author of the Gospel But being conscious that some Expressions unsuitable to so plain an Assertion as that of the Infinity of the Author of the Gospel might drop from his hasty Pen he says p. 5. that such hasty Expressions ought to be thereby i. e. by the word Infinity to be interpreted Answ And so it might if he had applied it to the Person of Christ but he tells us the occasion of that Expression was Ch. 11. from the assurance of a Christian grounded on the Resurrection beyond the hopes of a Heathen and the Persons in whom the one and the other believed Now whom do the Arrians believe to be the Author of that Resurrection but God the Father whom they often affirm to have raised our Saviour from the Dead and it s no wonder if they own his Infinity this being the substance of what they say is necessary to be believed viz. That God raised Jesus from the Dead and to confess him our Lord denying that Christ arose by any power of his own Therefore he would not have his Expressions imputed to his setled Opinion but his too great hast and heat in a Question which did nor concern the Divinity of Christ but the manner of his Generation the former as he adds was on both sides acknowledged the latter was the whole subject of the Dispute which Constantines Letter so often calleth Silly Answ If the Divinity of Christ in its proper sence i. e. his Deity had been acknowlegded I believe there had been no dispute concerning the manner of his Generation the Question was Whether he were Consubstantial with the Father or not not concerning the manner or modus but whether he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with the Father If the Dispute in Constantine's time had been only about the manner of Christ's Generation the Doctor might have taken in the Parenthesis of Dr. Wallis that it is not distinctly declared by God nor are we able fully to comprehend it nor is it necessary for us to know but it is necessary to know that this Generation was from Eternity that we may ground our Faith and Hope in him that is God and so is able to save to the utmost all that come to God by him he being the Lord i. e. Jehovah our Righteousness What the Controversy in the Nicene Council against Arrius was and how it was decided shall appear anon 2ly He says the design of his Book was only to disable Humane Authority from imposing on our Belief more Doctrines than Christ and his Apostles declared to be necessary Here are two bold Strokes first the Doctor will determine what those necessary Doctrines are and then he will disable Magistrates from imposing any other and so we shall lose the great Fundamental the Eternal Godhead of Christ which his Naked Gospel doth impugne 3ly Another design of this Author he says is By a due confinement of Faith to enlarge Charity Ans The Apostles method to enlarge Charity was not to confine but propagate the Faith once delivered to the Saints as the best motive
Trinitat Pag. 9. Col. 2. He takes occasion to mention the two great Institutions of our Saviour viz. Baptism and the Sacrament of his Body and Blood these he calls Positive Rites which he i. e. Christ appointed thereby to ingage us to profess our selves his Disciples and are not Parts of his Covenant but Badges of his Followers and Acknowledgments of our Homage to his Person These Rituals says he we shall not neglect yet I find not one word of the Eucharist all that he says of Baptism is Pag. 22. Col. 2. That the Design of Baptism as he had said before was an open Profession of Faith in defiance to the World and all its Powers forgetting what he had said before on our Saviour's words and Commission to his Disciples whom he sent to baptize He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved not simply as he notes he that believeth but he that believeth and is baptized and as the Apostle Hebr. 6. reckoneth Baptism among the Fundamentals so it hath the Characters which our Author requires in a Fundamental viz. a Precept with a Promise annexed shall be saved yet he thinks it but a Ceremony and Badge of outward profession I cannot but take notice how the Doctor pretending to be an Advocate for Infant Baptism turns Prevaricator and instead of giving them a right to it robs them of the benefits thereof he says indeed that the Church may upon small security from other sureties admit any Infant for a Member i. e. of such a Society as do profess the Faith of Christ and by his argument they may as well omit as admit the Baptism of Children for says he since the Gospel is the established Religion and the Profession of the very Parents maketh great odds against any danger of the contrary the Church may c. So that the Profession of the Parents may supersede the small security of other Sureties and if there be no other end of Baptism but to ingage Infants to the Profession of Faith in Christ it may be omitted till they are adult or if they should die before they who are not baptized are in no worse condition than they who are baptized And is not our Author deeply baptized into the Sentiments of the Socinians in all this and become a Disciple of them and the Antipedobaptists A Son of the Church of England is taught that Baptism is generally necessary to Salvation That it is certain by God's Word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved in the Rubrick after Baptism and in the Catechism Baptism is defined to be an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof and the benefit of it is this That being by nature born in Sin and Children of Wrath we are thereby made the Children of Grace or as it is more largely expressed the baptized are made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But the Socinians reason cannot apprehend how this can be As to the other Sacrament one Egg is not better like another than his Discourse of the Lord's Supper is with that of Smalcius in the Doctor 's Book called the Constant Communicant which he that reads will find to be but a Comment on Smalcius his Text who as generally the Socinians do teach that this Sacrament which they call a Rite was instituted only for a Remembrance of the Death of Christ not that we receive any new benefit by it or that any thing is therein conveyed or sealed to us and so the words of Consecration are interpreted by the Doctor as by a Socinian thus i. e. This whole action which is now doing is my Body which is given for you i. e. signifies my giving myself to Death for your Salvation so that ye ought alway to commemorate my Death by this Rite or Ceremony And Socinus plainly denieth that the Sacraments are strengthners of our Faith or seals whereby the Promises of God are confirmed to us or the strength of heavenly Grace encreased The Doctor also calls the Sacraments Rites makes the Lord's Supper only a Grace-cup to be commended to one another after a Feast and breaking some Bread prepared for that use and therefore we need not dread to be constant Communicants or to be precise in our Reverence at it as if he would have us forbear kneeling as the Socinians do lest we should be thought to Adore On a design to deny that there is the presence of Christ's Body or Bloud in any sence or that any Grace or Promise is thereby conveyed or sealed to us these things are some of them obscurely and some of them too plainly asserted in that Book One general Remark more which I formerly mention'd is That he often speaks of a Divinity of Christ but never of his Deity which is noted to be studiously done by the Socinians that though they grant our Saviour a kind of Divinity as a Man of God yet will not honour him with the title of a Deity as God and Man wherein they deal with Christ as the Heathen dealt with their Hero's as Servius notes on Virgil Deos vocabant perpetuos Divos ex Hominibus factos or as we call our ancient Writers Divus Angustinus This is observed by Cloppenburgh against Smalcius that he allowed our Saviour to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Partaker of the Divine Nature which St. Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1.4 which may be attributed to all holy Men. Smalcius placing in his Frontispiece the 9th Verse of Col. 2. keeps to this word and thus renders it In Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Divinity bodily on which Cloppenburgh observes that with Smalcius the Deity and Divinity do differ as much as Infinite and Finite And it is to be feared that the Doctor hath the same Notion though not only our Translation but Pagnine and Arias Montanus read as we do the Fulness of the Godhead c. for he still keeps to the word Divinity when he speaks of Christ as Smalcius did before him Another Remark is his depraving the nature and necessity of Evangelical Faith and setting Reason and Natural Religion above and against it Here first I remark how well the Doctor agrees with Volkelius in his Discourse of Faith There are saith the Doctor but two Articles of Faith at most and sometime they are reduced to one and either of them Faith and Repentance There are saith Volkelius two general Precepts of the Gospel Faith and Repentance which are sometime joyned in one Precept and sometime in distinct Precepts De fide And he mentions the same of the Gospel as our Doctor often doth That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved But then Volkelius by this Faith means an
observe that such a Practice was ancient and in some times reasonable Antonius Pagi a Franciscan in his Critical Notes upon Baronius ad Seculum secundum p. 21 c. gives us several Quotations to this purpose St. Augustine on John Tract 96. says That the Sacraments of the Faithful are not exposed to the Catechumens and the Catechumens do not know what the Faithful do receive Chrysostom on Matth. Hom. 27. Those only that are initiated do know what the Faithful receive Origine in his first Book against Celsus shews the Reason as well as the Custom of concealing some Christian Rites he tells him That the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Crucifixion Resurrection and coming to Judgment were known to all but the Jews derided them and that was the cause that other Mysteries were concealed particularly that of the Holy Trinity And concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity St. Chrysostome Hom. 4. on 1 Cor. professeth that he durst not speak of the Form of Baptism and of the Creed in which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is explained I dare not saith he because of those that are not yet initiated who make the Exposition more difficult who compel us either not to speak openly or to discover Secrets to them yet I will speak of them as far as I am permitted under Figures St. Cyril of Jer. Catech. 6. speaking of the Mysteries contained in the Creed says The Church layeth open these Mysteries and Sacraments to those that are initiated but it is not their Custom to expose them to the Gentiles we do not declare to them the Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor do we openly preach them to the Catechumens but in such a secret manner as they that profess the things may understand it and they who understand it not may not be prejudiced There is something to this purpose in Soz. l. 1. c. 20. I thought saith he to have set forth a Copy of the Creed as necessary for the Demonstration of our Faith but when some of my Friends pious Men and well skilled in the knowledge of these things perswaded me that I should keep in silence such things as are fit for Priests only to speak of and for such as are already initiated to hear I approved of their Counsel because it is very probable that some who are not yet initiated may read these Books wherefore I have hid as much as I could those Secrets which ought to be concealed acquainting the Reader with such Decrees of the Council which they ought not to be wholly ignorant of And indeed we find that the Heathen when they heard of the secret Doctrines of the Trinity Sacraments and Prayers of the Primitive Christians did make sport of them and ridicul'd them on their Theatres and publick Plays whereof we have an instance in Lucian's Philopatris or a Dialogue wherein he represents a Christian instructing an Ethnick by whom he ought to swear Thou shalt swear says he by the God that rules on high the great immortal and immutable God by the Son of the Father and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father one in three and three in one conceive this to be Jupiter your God To which the Ethnick answers I cannot apprehend what you say is one three and three one Thus also he scoffs at our Lord's Prayer when the Heathen bids his Catechumen go and say the Prayer beginning Father and end with a Song of many Names i. e. the Doxology Socinus says in his Defence against Eutropius That he never read any thing more strong for the Opinion of the Trinity than this of Lucian he wrote in the time of Trajan St. Hierom speaking of the Translation of the Septuagint says That the Translators did not reveal to Ptolomy the Incarnation of the Son of God lest the Heathen should think they had two Gods Proeme on Gen. Casaubone on Baronius Exerat 16. and Monsieur Morney mention the same Discipline which may be a great reason why so few of those ancient Fathers mentioned the Trinity and those who did spake in such dark Terms as our Author himself hath observed p. 56. c. 2. that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did hide from the Catechumens the Rites of Sacraments So that considering this Discipline which restrained many Ancients from publishing the whole Truth and the diligence of the several Hereticks to alter and expunge what was written against them it is a wonderful Providence that so many Authentick Testimones are preserved The following Collections are mostly from Mr. Bull 's Book where the Reader may see them asserted The Epistle of Barnabas written about the time of the Apostles call Christ the Son of God Lord of the whole World by whom and for whom all things were made i. e. by him as the Efficient and for him as the Final Cause which agreeth with the Apostle Rom. 11.36 and cannot be said of any but God without Blasphemy s 1. c. 2. n. 2. and in c. 5. of that Epistle he says That he who foreknew all things foretold his People that he would take away the Heart of Stone and give them a Heart of Flesh because he was to appear or be made manifest in the Flesh and to dwell in us for our Hearts says he are the holy Temple of the Lord. Hermas another Apostolical Writer in his Book called The Pastor affirms That the Son of God was present with his Father before all Creatures and calls him his Counsellor and that the name of the Son of God is great and infinite that the whole World is sustained by him and thus distinguisheth between the Son of God and the Creatures Similitud 9. And l. 3. Simil. 5. he says The Son of God is not put in a servile condition but in great power for to be put in the form of a Servant and to be a Creature are of one signification This agrees with that distinction of the Apostle Phil. 2. c. 6. between the Form of a Servant and the Form of God Of this Author Petavius says That he was never suspected to have any false Opinion of the Trinity Martialis a Bishop and Martyr and who is said to have been one of the seventy Disciples in his Epistle to the Burdegalenses c. 2. says of our Saviour That as a Man born of the Virgin he could die but as the Son of God he was from the beginning and as God he could not be held under the power of Death And Chap. 4. He being the true God and true Man shall judge all Nations Chap. 10. That the Spirit of God most glorious by Divine Equality did proceed from the Word not begotten not made nor created but the Word was begotten therefore says he do ye not conceive any thing different in the Deity of the Trinity because to you there is one and the same God the Father that created all things and one and the same Lord by whom all things were made his Son Jesus Christ and one and