same particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used in both places yet the Apostle meant not to use it in the same sence in both the sence of it in the former is contrary to the later we rejoyce that our Sins are taken away by his Death but are sorry to have our Justification taken away by his Resurrection we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but we are justified by his Resurrection because thereon our Faith is built The inference which he makes is this So plain it is that the Faith which the Gospel requireth had its foundation in Natural Religion We see here how hard the Doctor strains to advance his Natural or Pelagian Religion he will not admit that the Apostle spake sence but contradictions in the same Period he speaks our sence not his own in the first part viz. that Christ died in our stead and we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but he speaks his own sence in the other part because he grounds our Justification on his Natural Religion and thereby evidently destroyeth the Evangelical Faith which we assert viz. That Christ by his Death made an Expiation or Satisfaction for our Sins In this the Doctor Yoaks himself with the Socinians for so Crellius speaking of the Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says They do not alway signify a meritorious Cause but only a final C. 1. Sect. 6. i. e. That he died for the good of Mankind as St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church and we are to lay down our lives for the brethren Col. 1.24 1 John 3.16 But can this be the sence of those plain places 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ hath suffered for our sins the just for the unjust and 2 Cor. 5.14 He gave himself a ransome for all and to taste death for every man and Luke 22.19 20. This is my bloud which was shed for you and Mat. 20.28 The son of man gave his life a ransome for many And ought we not to interpret this of Rom. 4. by the Analogy of those other places wherein the Scriptures do abound as Col. 1. Eph. 1. 1 Tim. 2. Heb. 7.27 1 Joh. 1.7 Revel 1.5 against all these Socinus urgeth that in 1 Kings 14.16 where it is said God shall deliver up Israel for the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin where he contends that the same signification of the words for the sins of Jeroboam ought to be interpreted as we do interpret that of Rom 4. which would be a kind of Blasphemy to say That Christ was delivered for our sins because not only we had sinned but had made him to sin as Jeroboam made Israel to sin Chap. 3. He applauds that Faith which is a Duty in Natural Religion It is saith he a Cardinal Vertue Justice towards God that pays him his due this was taught before Moses brought the positive Law into the World and that the Gospel builds on that foundation read Rom. 4. This speaks of the Faith of Abraham which hath been already considered Another Commendation of Natural Faith is That it is a great Promoter of Obedience wherein the Old Testament being silent as he says he sends us to Heb. 11. in the New Testament But had not those worthies any notice of the promised seed Had they no knowledge of a future state Did not they look for a heavenly country v. 16. And for a city which had foundations v. 10. Did not Abraham receive his Isaac in a type v. 19. Did not Moses see him who is invisible and had respect to the recompence of reward v. 26 27. Did not he write of Christ Did not the rest suffer in confidence of a better resurrection And did natural Faith instruct and enable them to do and suffer all these things If all these were the fruits and effects of a Natural Faith I cannot see what need there was of the Gospel if Nature shewed the way to Life and Immortality which 2 Tim. 1.10 says was brought to light by the Gospel if it taught so much Obedience Constancy and Patience how can Christ say John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by me How is it said That grace and truth came by Jesus Christ in opposition to what was revealed by Moses John 1.17 The law was weak Rom. 8.3 through the flesh and what that could not do God did by sending his own Son c. and made nothing perfect but the bringing in of a better hope Heb. 7.19 This it seems the Doctor would teach the Apostle for Gal. 3.3 This I would learn of you Received you the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith was this hearing of Faith the voice of Nature or the preaching of the Gospel It was the knowledge of Christ crucified which the Apostle so valued that he accounted all other vaine and ineffectual to Salvation P. 63. c. 1. And as our Author says What Devotion is there without Love and what Love without some knowledge of the Object And doubtless the more excellent the Object is the more will our love be increased when we consider that he who first loved us was the Eternal Son of God and that he so loved us as to die for us that we might live to and with him this will heighten our love to him above all things for what are Moses and the Prophets or the Apostles were they crucified for us have they redeemed us from the wrath of God They indeed taught us the will of God and gave us Divine as well as Moral Precepts but Christ only can write them in our hearts he only can pardon our sins having obtained Remission at the expence of his own Blood We therefore joyn with the Doctor in recommending the Duties of Natural Religion and say these ought we to do but by no means to leave the Duties of Evangelical Faith undone or disbelieved for though that hath done vertuously in many respects yet this excelleth them all In Chap. 4. he strikes again at the Foundation of Faith under the name of Credulity which he calls a Vice and the danger in this is when we pay that to a * Doth not this insinuate that Châ—â—â—t is a Creature Creature which is due to God only and mentioneth a Question of Mr. Chillingworth's to the Romanists Why implicit Faith in our Lord might not as well avail for Justification as implicit Faith in the Church By implicit Faith in the Church the Romanists mean to believe as the Church believes yet I do not believe the Papists think this implicit Faith will justify them without good Works And if by implicit Faith in Christ he means only a general belief of his Doctrines without obedience to his Commands neither is this available for Justification so that it was no such difficult Question but it might be
Conclusion he deserves to be shaken into the Fire again for the impotent Creature doth not only hiss at the mistaken Author of Nolumus leges Angliae mutari but on the whole Convocation for their stiffness to their Constitutions whose very Authors says he in the Conclusion were they now living and true to their own reason must be willing to abolish them This is the Doctor 's enlarged Charity to the deceased Compilers of our Liturgy that they would have done as he desireth i. e. removing the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the Litany Doxology and I know not what Constitutions besides the Institutions of our Saviour to wit the two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist the ends whereof this Doctor with the Socinians doth utterly destroy and retains them only as Rites and Badges of an outward Profession of a Naked Gospel But let us enquire wherein this enlarged Charity of the Doctor 's doth consist Charity is either the love of God or of our Neighbours Now first our love to God ought to bear proportion with the love he hath bestowed on us of which the Apostle Joh. 3.16 saith God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Ver. 17. That the world by him might be saved The World then without Christ was in a lost and perishing condition God had for Sin shut them up under a sentence of Condemnation and it was his infinite Goodness and Wisdom to contrive the Means of our Salvation such as might reconcile us to himself to which end he thought this the fittest to send his only begotten Son into the World to dye for our sins the just for the unjust making him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him of this love the Apostle with admiration says Behold what manner of love the Father hath shewn to us c. If God had only sent a Prophet a Man of God to make a fuller Declaration of his Will this had not been a reason of so great Admiration but when he sent his only begotten Son that was one with the Father and laid help on him that was mighty able to save us to the utmost being God and Man this deserves the Sic So and the Ecce Behold and our admiration What manner of Love had he been the Son of God only by a miraculous Conception which freed him from Original Corruption had he only lived a Holy Life and left us a good Example had he only died to confirm the truth of his Doctrine as the Socinians say the Birth of St. John Baptist his austere Life and Death might come near to all this The Gift therefore here spoken of must be such as became the Infinite Goodness of God such as might reconcile his Love to us with his Love to his Justice such as might be sufficient to satisfie for the Sins of all that should believe in his Son and obey the Commands of God by him Which now is the greater Obligation of our Love to God to believe as I have said the Socinians do or as the Catholicks That God sent his only Begotten i. e. his Eternal Son the Wonderful the Mighty GOD to satisfie for our Sins to instruct us in all things that concern the Glory of God and our own Salvation to hear our Prayers and relieve all our Necessities to sanctifie our Souls and make us Partakers of the Divine Nature by the operation of the Spirit of Grace This is Love and this the Gift that God bestowed on us through his Infinite Love and in some proportion we ought so to love God as he first loved us And to think of and esteem of this Gift less than what the Scripture hath valued it at is not rightly to apprehend his Love or our infinite Obligations to make suitable Returns 2. As to our Love to Christ if he were only a Man that taught us the Will of God so did the Apostles if he died only to confirm his Doctrine and give us an Example of Constancy and Patience so have many Martyrs done But Rom. 5.7 8. God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us and had he only died for us and not been able to rise again and to take up his life as well as to lay it down had he not destroyed all the Enemies of our Salvation and ascended to Heaven having all Power committed to him we might argue as the Apostle doth If Christ be not risen and if he be not the Eternal Son of God to make Intercession for us and to send the Holy Ghost to sanctifie us then is our Preaching vain and our Faith is vain and we are yet in our Sins but now we may sing ouâ— Epinicion over all our Enemies The stâ—ng of Death is sin and the strength of Sin is the Law but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.56 57. Then for his Love to the Holy Spirit of God it is too well known that the Socinians deny his Deity and say That the Holy Spirit is nothing separate from the Word so that we need not to Baptize in his Name to praise him in our Doxology or to pray to him Come Holy Ghost Eternal God c. Our natural Reason and Faith in God makes the assistance of any other Spirit needless and why then should we wait on the Spirit of God any longer or believe that God will give any other Spirit to them that ask it Is there no other Spirit but that which works in the Children of Disobedience Are not some Souls an Habitation of God through the Spirit Read we not of the Spirit of the Son Gal. 4.6 that helps our Infirmities Do we not read of the divers Gifts of the Spirit and that it is Christ's Vice-Roy as I may say to preside over his Church to the World's end And is there no Love no Obedience due to his Spirit but we must joyn with the Socinians to pluck the Holy Ghost from his Throne 2. As for his enlarged Charity to his Brethren what love doth he manifest to the Church of God that hath been founded on this Rock of the Confession of St. Peter Thou art Christ the Son of the living God when by his Principles they are proclaimed to be Idolaters as worshipping a Creature besides the Creator and giving him and the Holy Spirit which by his Maxims are not God by nature the same Divine Honour which is due to God only And as to the Church of England particularly it hath been declared how contrary his Opinions are to her avowed Doctrines more especially his Charity to the Convocation of the Clergy at Westminster whom he condemns to be too stiff to their Constitutions when he says All the World expected a Condescention from them is not very large It was no very good Opinion that he
was prevailed with to subscribe but returning home to Spain Athanasius says that Hosius on his Death-bed repented complaining of the Violences which were offered him and anathematized the Arians charging all the People to avoid that Heresie Athanasius gives him an excellent Character and in allusion to his Name says He was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a Holy Man Another Synod was made up by some of these Men at Sirmium where they condemned as well the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being not Scriptural words and 't is observed that in their address to the Emperour among other Titles which they gave him they termed him Eternal which they denied to grant to the Son of God whom they affirmed to be a Creature This Synod was held Anno Dom. 359. But there needed yet a farther Confirmation of the Arian Doctrine and therefore the Emperour is perswaded to send to the Bishop of Rome to summon all the Bishops of the Latine as the Emperour undertook for the Bishops of the Greek Church and there was like to be so great a concourse that one place was not thought capable to entertain them wherefore Ariminum in Italy was appointed for the Western and Selucia for the Eastern Bishops Here Valens finding the Nicene Faith likely to be confirmed read a Creed very like to that of the Nicene one only expression being subtily inserted viz. That Christ was not a Creature like unto other Creatures and all the rest being agreeable to the Nicene Faith they were unwarily prevailed with to sign that Creed which implied our Saviour to be a Creature the same after much Controversie was confirm'd at Selucia by the means of Leonas whom the Emperour sent there for that purpose Some of the Eastern Bishops in their Return stayed at a place called Nice in Thracia where they confirmed the same Faith thinking to recommend it to the common People under the name of the Nicene Faith These were headed by Ursacius And at Antioch some others met Anno. 360. and condemned the use of the word Substance whence they were called Anomaeans and Exoucontians But about this time Constantius dies viz. Anno 361 whose great business was to establish the Arian Faith imploying the Bishops in one Synod after another and influencing them all by his own Presence or his Deputies and his Threatning Letters But on his Death-bed it is said he repented of these three things 1. That he had caused the Death of so many of his Kindred 2ly That he had named Julian to be his Successor in the Empire And 3ly That he had occasioned so many Troubles and Innovations in the Church and Faith See Theoderet l. 3. c. 1. p. 125. But Athanasius survived him many Years and died in a good old Age having established the Foundation of the Christian Faith and thereupon raised a perpetual Monument of his Learning and Piety which shall be happily remembred in all Places where the Gospel is preached Chap. 9. He says The Dispute is dangerous and the Danger is twofold 1. Of Blasphemy 2. Contention 1. Concerning Blasphemy They who held the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thought to blaspheme as denying that the Son had any substance of his own The others were accused as Heathen that brought in the Worship of many Gods And thus he says either Party charged the other with Blasphemy As for the Arians it may well be thought that they had their superior and inferior Gods in that they worshipped a Created God but the Consubstantialists worshipped one God only i. e. the Trinity in Unity There is no doubt a Blasphemy against the Son of God when as the Pharisees that would have stoned him because he said he was the Son of God thinking that he acted by the help of Belzeebub the Prince of Devils and if they had only denied him to have wrought his Miracles by the Spirit of God this had been a Blaspemy An ancient Divine of our Church Mr. Porter writing of the Incarnation of our Saviour gives his sence of Matth. 12.31 32. which I only repeat and leave the Reader to judge of it being alien from the common Interpretation Christ having cast out a Devil by his Divine Spirit the Pharisees knowing it must be done by some supernatural Power would not grant it to be by the Power of God but of the Devil our Saviour convinceth them that it was done by the Spirit of God tho' they would not acknowledge it but against the Evidence of a Divine Power blasphemed the Spirit by which our Saviour had done that Miracle They had reproached him as a Man before calling him a gluttonous Person a Wine-bibber a friend of Publicans and Sinners This was remissius ventire de felio hominis But when they blaspheme the Spirit of God by which he had cast out a Devil as if by consent of Devils he had cast them out this he denounceth an unpardonable Sin the Sin against the Holy Ghost i. e. saith he Against the spirit of God in Christ not taken personally for the Holy Ghost but essentially for the Godhead of Christ for which he quotes St. Basil saying Spiritus appellatio est Communis tribus personis And Tertul. Jesus Christus est Spiritus dei St. August also Quia deus Spiritus est potest dici Pater est Spiritus filius est spiritus c. 2. He says the Pharisees had not heard of the Person of the Holy Ghost of which some of the Disciples were not fully instructed The Question was Whether Christ acted by the Spirit and Power of God or the Devil And Christ proves he did it by the Spirit i. e. by the Power of the Godhead The sence then of our Saviour's Answer to make it pertinent to the Objection is this What I have now done I have proved to be done by the Spirit of God and though what you have spoken against me as the Son of Man may be forgiven yet what you or any other shall speak against me as the Son of God shall never be forgiven Therefore he concludes that to deny the Deity of Christ is that Blasphemy for to rob Christ of his Godhead which is the foundation of the Remission of Sins is to exclude ourselves from that benefit Qui negat deum in Christo caret omni Misericordia He that denies Christ to be God cannot obtain mercy Hence the Fathers affirm Arius and Julian who denyed the Deity of Christ to be guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost 2 St. John 4.3 Every spirit or doctrine Qui soluit Jesum So St. Heirom Prosp c. read that Text That divides the Deity of Christ from his Humanity is Antichrist St. Ambrose de Fide And he is Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 2.22 He adds It is dangerous because we have no firm footing from Scripture Antiquity or Councils Which because he only affirms without shew of proof it will be sufficient to
stupid belief of a multitude of impertinent and incredible Propositions without yea some of them against all Reason without any fruit but strife contrary to the Simplicity wherein the Gospel glorieth and to that contempt which God himsef sheweth to acts of mee◠Understanding which opprobrious Terms he mentioneth also p. 51. c. 1. Doth not the Doctor fix these opprobrious Terms on our Blessed Saviour when it is evident that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred in his Name as well as in the Name of the Father and the Holy Ghost especially seeing the Doctor cannot deny Baptism to be a Fundamental of the Christian Religion as having an express Precept and a Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it And to be baptized in the Name of the Father c. is to devote ourselves to the Worship and Obedience of the Person in whose Name we are baptized and by consequence being we are baptized equally into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we acknowledge them to be of equal Dignity and are obliged to pay them equal Worship This Precept of our Saviour being no part of the Doctor 's Natural Religion but a prime Fundamental of the Christian doth irrefragably convince the Doctor to be guilty of gross Impiety when he in p. 57. c. 2. and p. 51. c. 1. discoursing of the Changes which later Ages have made in Matters of Faith under which by the tendency of the whole Book that of the Doctrine of the Trinity is chiefly intended he infers our Saviour to be a humorous and capricious Lord and what means this passage p. 30. c. 1. That it must cast dishonour no less on his Wisdom than his Majesty c. if we think he will grant Salvation on no other Terms than a belief of the whole truth concerning the Dignity of his Person for this will imply that he came and suffered on purpose to purchase to himself the honour of such a Belief c. P. 52. c. 2. The proper Dominions of Faith he says exceed not this one proposition That God cannot lye Ans What difference then is there between the Faith of a Jew or a Turk and that of a Christian they believe this as firmly as the Doctor doth and are they as much Christians as he He allows it no value from its relation to the Person of Christ though he doubteth not the Person of Christ to be infinitely valuable The Turks grant he was a just Man and a true Prophet but not an All-sufficient Saviour But who are they that advance Faith above Holiness yea against it too not only the thorough pac'd Antinomians and Solifidians but many who call themselves Orthodox who say Faith is the hand whereby we apply Christ to ourselves and by this application Christ is made ours and his Righteousness imputed to us as if it were our own and it justifies not by its own worthiness but by the Merit of Christ which it lyeth hold on and applieth I perceive the Doctor learnt this from Mr. Beedle's Preface to his Socinian Catechism where he rejects the same Tenets because they are not to be found in express terms in Scripture viz. The apprehending and applying of Christ's righteousness to ourselves by Faith of Christ's righteousness imputed to us of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile us to him of Christ's Merits or his meritorious Obedience both active and passive of which he says That as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture so neither the things contained in them I doubt not but the Doctor read that Preface and applies it to the same end And where in the name of Christ saith our Author do we in all the Book of God or in Reason which he alway equalleth with the Scripture meet any intimation of this fine Doctrine Application of Christ to our selves the hand of Faith imputed Righteousness c. What are they but Terms of Art invented by false Apostles But were the Compilers of our Liturgy false Apostles Or do we not find the matter if not the words therein when we pray God to deliver us by his Cross and Passion Or is there no Merit in them when we are taught to pray That by the Merits and Death of Jesus Christ and through Faith in his Bloud we and the whole Church may obtain Remission of Sins and all other benefits of his Passion See the Prayer after the Communion Do not they inform us of the * In Warning the Communion meritorious Cross and Passion of our Saviour whereby alone we obtain Remission of our Sins and are made Partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven Or was he a false Apostle that teacheth us That Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him But the Doctor will not recede a hairs breadth from his Socinian Principles lest he should acknowledge that Christ died for our Sins and rose for our Justification which he says the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not bear p. 14. c. 2. The Doctor is much pleased with his Microscope which discovers a multitude of little Animals where the best eye sees nothing but limpid Water But had he a spiritual Eye he might by the Mirror of the Gospel discover many saving Truths which to a carnal Eye are not discernable Another Complaint against Faith is p. 54. That it is exalted above and against Charity and he calls the Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Eternal Deity of Christ the first and most uncharitable Dispute that ever rent the Christian World P. 55. c. 1. But who began these Disputes but Ebion Cerinthus and the Arians who used the Gospel as the poor Man was used that fell among Theives left it naked and wounded and opposed all that came to its relief were we all united in the Faith of the Gospel which teacheth us that we have one Lord one Faith one Baptism viz. in the Holy Trinity it would be a more effectual means to enlarge Charity than the new Heresies that deny the Lord that bought them and being uncharitable to their Lord cannot be otherwise to his Servants they that thus wound the Head the Deity of Christ cannot but rent the Members who by that Faith are united to him The old Serpent was permitted to bruise the Heel of the Messiah i. e. as Commentators say his natural Body of flesh and blood but these Serpents attempt his Head i. e. his Divinity but in vain for he shall break their heads The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against our Faith that Christ is the Son of the Living God upon which Christ hath founded his Church The great Complaint against Faith is yet behind That it is exalted above and against Reason for nothing is to be believed further than Reason proveth it to be true p. 56. c. 1. That is the Socinians Reason But by the assistance of Faith the Christian may believe
and what other or better sence can we find than what the Catholick Church alway affirmed viz. That Christ with his Father and the Holy Ghost is the only true God And thus St. Augustine as hath been said renders it This is Life eternal to know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God Cont. Arium Tom. 6. n. 17. P. 54. Against Christ's Righteousness imputed to us he tells a Story of a Land that was wasted with a raging Plague to whom came a great Physitian declaring he had a Nostrum which never failed to cure those that trusted it that it cost him dear but he would freely communicate it to all that needed and desir'd it and exhorted all to come to him which many did and were cured but some said there needed no more but to trust to the Medicine The Physitian was infinitely skilful in his Art and faithful in his Promises wherefore by confidence in him they should have all his health imputed to them and that should cure them as perfectly as if they received real health by the use of his Prescriptions This is a Fiction of his own to serve his Hypothesis which I shall answer by a more probable Story out of the Midras Tehillim or the Exposition of the Psalms where on those words Kiss the Son we have this Parable This is as when a certain King was displeased with the Inhabitants of a great City the Citizens went and made Supplication to the King's Son to appease his Father's displeasure The Son went and effectually prevailed with his Father to forgive them and take them into his Favour which the King's Son having signified to the Citizens they addressed their Thanks to the King The King bid them go and give Thanks to his Son for had it not been for his Mediation their City had been destroyed This is that which is said Kiss the Son and it may be well for the Doctor if he would go and do likewise It is not good to make sport of holy Things and droll on the Mysteries of our Salvation comparing them to Fables and this in Scripture Phrase ridiculing the Peace of God as passing all understanding and the Meritorious Death of our Saviour to the Prescriptions or Juggles of a Quack as if Faith in the Power and Merits of our Saviour were as vain as the Opinions of the Mobile concerning an Empyrick yet we read of great Miracles wrought by Faith in the Person of Christ P. 41. Thus the Leaper by his Faith Lord if thou wilt thou canst make me clean And the Centurian's Faith prevailed for his Servant Matth. 8. And as many as touched the hem of his garment were healed by their faith in his almighty power There could not therefore be a more odious Comparison he says of the Mystery which the Apostle spake of to the Ephesians That though it were hard to be believed yet it was easie to be understood for it signified only That the Gentiles were Fellow-Heirs with the Jews But was not this a Mystery hid from that Nation until Christ and his Apostles revealed it wiser Men than the Doctor do rightly admire some Secrets in Nature which when their Causes and Natures are discovered very ignorant Men may apprehend this the Doctor says to shew That it is so far from being an honour that it is rather a defect As if there were no difficulty in Matters of Faith and the Mystery of Godliness mentioned by St. Paul in Timothy viz. God manifested in the flesh were no harder to be understood than that Mystery which had been so clearly revealed The admission of the Gentiles to a fellowship with the Jews This is to serve another Hypothesis of his That we are not bound to believe what we cannot understand by our Reason and so to invalidate our belief of the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Christ for saith the Doctor p. 32. col 1. If we will needs enquire into the Mysteries of Christ's Divinity and Incarnation we shall find our Understandings no less confounded by the brightness of the Mystery than our Eyes are by the Sun and of this the Holy Ghost warns us not only by a careful silence concerning our Lord's Genealogy but by express Types and Prophesies concerning its inscrutability So that by the Doctor 's Propositions neither our Knowledge nor our Faith have any thing to do about the Divinity he will not call it the Deity of our Saviour or his Incarnation it matters not whether we know or believe any thing concerning either I shall not charge the Dr. with any thing that he hath not expresly said and therefore do acknowledge that what he speaks of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation falls not under our debate but I know that the Socinians say that there is no firmer footing for the Doctrine of the Trinity in the holy Scripture than for Transubstantiation and the Socinians at Alba Julia in a Treatise printed 1568. say thus Whoever believes the Pope to be Antichrist doth truly believe the Popish Trinity Infant Baptism and other Popish Sacraments to be the Doctrines of Devils And when I consider that the Naked Gospel is bereaved of this Doctrine and intended not so much against the Doctrine and Sacraments retained in that Church as against what is maintained in the Church of England I submit it to the Judgment of others whether these following expressions of the Authors do not reflect on the Doctrine of our Church when he speaks of a pack of impertinent Mysteries p. 58. col 2. And that Mahomet among all his Whimsies hath nothing comparable to it p. 59. col 1. And that the Athanasian Doctrine may be numbred with the Papal and of the Contradictions which are in the one as well as in the other P. 41. c. 1. P. 21. c. 1. P. 56. c. 2. The Doctor seems much offended at the word Mystery thô he knows thereis nothing reserved from the youngest Catecheumen in the Church of England who is diligently instructed in the Principles of Religion by order of the Church yet he must grant that there were many things in the Scripture which continued to be so until they were revealed such were those Mysteries mentioned by St. Paul 1 Tim. 3.16 Without question great is the mystery of godliness God was manifest in the flesh justified in the spirit seen of angels believed on in the world received up into glory And such were those Parables which our Saviour proposed to his Disciples which exceeded their apprehensions until they were expounded to them by our Saviour And such was that Mystery which the Apostle speaks of Ephes 1.10 and Ephes 3.6 which was not made known to the Sons of Men in other Ages as it was revealed to the Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit viz. That the Gentiles should be Fellow heirs and of the same Body and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel But when the Gentiles were taken in to be
Darts thrown at him by an Angle which put him into a great Agony whereof he died miserably Greg. Nazianzen reports the same of Julian the Apostate who in his War against the Persians felt a Dart thrown at him by an unknown Hand which he pluckt out and cast it into the Air with a Vicisti Galilaei Thou hast overcome me O Galilean Of which that Father Orat. 3. says of such as still opposed the Deity of our Saviour Audite Angeli quorum Operâ Julianus extinctus est Hear the Angels by whose Assistance Julian was slain Platina in the Life of Anastasius the Second Nestorius who as Prateilus says affirmed That Christ was Dei ferus not Deus and fancied two Natures in Christ by the Council of Ephesus Cyril of Alexandria being President and the Emperor banished him in which Banishment his Tongue rotted out of his Mouth being eaten with Worms and the Church passed this Sentence on him That he went from temporal Miseries to eternal Torments Socrates l. 7. c. 33. Evagrius l. 1. c. 7. You have heard of the ignominious Death of Arius already against whom Bishop Alexander prayed Si Arius cras in Synagoga introducetur nunc dimittas seruum tuum sin Ecclesiae parias tolle Arium See Athanasius Epist ad Serapion l. 7. c. 19. Paulus Orosius speaking of the Goths and Vandals who petitioned an Arian Emperor to send them some Christian Preachers he sent them such as were infected with Arianism and shortly after they made War against him and slew him Under the Persecution of Dioclesian the Hereticks that denied our Saviour's Deity as the Sabellians and Samosatenians with others had done who were the Fathers of Arius his Heresie raised another Persecution against the Orthodox as cruel as that of the most cruel Persecutor for Donatus having begun his Schism which disturbed all Africa where also the Arian Heresie prevailed got many of that Opinion to joyn with him Optatus Milevitanus speaking of those times Hist Collationis Carthag says Credo nostros in refutandis Arianis totos fuisse p. 606. That the Orthodox were wholly imployed in defending themselves against the Arians We are assured by good History that Donatus himself wrote a Book de Spiritu Sancto agreeable to the Doctrine of Arius as Optatus and St. Heirom and St. August ad Quod vult Deum do relate They altered the Doxology and made it run thus Glory be to the Father in the Son and by the Holy Ghost and taught that the Son was less than the Father and the Holy Ghost less than the Son So that by the prevalence of the Donatists who favoured all Sects and Heresies to strengthen themselves against the Catholicks great Cruelties were practised against them many banished some cruelly tortured and murthered the Jews Arians Macedonians Sabellians c. all uniting under the Donatists Both the Holy Sacraments grew into contempt as they are now where the Socinians prevail some were so prophane as to cast the consecrated Bread to their Dogs which after they had eaten grew mad and sell upon their Masters Theodoret tells us how they scoft at the consecrated Vessels or rather at the Son of God Ecce quibus vasis sacrificatur Mariae filio l. 3. c. 12. They were so numerous that they despised all the Emperor's Edicts that were published against them and affronted his Officers But God punished them by their own inventions giving them to a kind of Madness which if ever appeared in the Circumcellians that in their rage slew whomever they met without distinction not sparing each other and frequently destroyed themselves no wonder therefore that they were cruel to others being unmerciful to their own Souls Paulus Samosatenus was banisht by Aurelian for the disturbance made in his Dominions at the Request of the Council that condemned him The Arians displaced Maximus Bishop of Neopolis for not complying with their Doctrine and placed one Sozomus in his Bishoprick Maximus keeps to his Office until they cast him out by force and then he denounced an Anathama against the Intruder Sozomus enters into his Office and being to speak to the People his Tongue failed him and grew too big for his Mouth so that he left the Church and People for that time and being recovered he assayed a second and so a third time but still found the same Judgment attended him so that he was forced to forsake his usurped Dignity The famous St. George whom the late Author of the Acts of the Great Athanasius p. 8. so highly commends as that he makes him the most skilful of all Mortals in those Questions who was he thinks that Legendary Saint that slew the Dragon and delivered a Virgin the Moral whereof he says was That Athanasius was the Dragon and the Church of Alexandria the Virgin which by his Learning and Piety he defended from the venomous breath of Athanasius But this was the Man that had been a Souldier and in his latter days turn'd Arian and when none else could be found to enter on the Bishoprick of Athanasius St. George having favour of the Arian Party presumed to Sequester him but to the great dislike of the People who after a short time fell on him dragged him through the Streets of Alexandria and slew him yet the Arians accounted him for a Martyr see Epiphanius Heres 76. Sandius gives a large account of this George and says That the Turks accounted him a Prophet and call him Gerges Sandius p. 246. says He was slain by a party of the Athanasians But the Ancient Historians say it was done by the barbarous Greeks whose Temples he had destroyed That infamous Ecebolius who so often changed his outward Profession lived and died an Arian Sand. Append. p. 32. Lelius Socinus Uncle to Faustus was the first that revived the Heresie against the Blessed Trinity a person of good Learning and of a good Family as Andreas Dudithius relates he concealed his Opinions only he was wont to insinuate them by way of Discourse as if he did it for his own Information but it was rather to seduce others as Dudithius says he attempted him But Socinus his Nephew observes That having collected his Papers and made them ready to be published he was praematura morte extinctus viz. in the thirty seventh Year of his Life Sandius p. 230. says That Leo the first Bishop of Rome in the days of St. Hilary was an Arian opposing the Doctrine of the Trinity for which Hilary l. 1. ad Constantium reflects on him in these words Leo saeviens circumit He came to a like end as Arius did voiding his Entrails by a violent Dysentery and miserably expired the like he says of Anastasius another Bishop of Rome p. 310. The same Author p. 428. tells us of one Gregorius Pauli an Arian who preaching at Cracovia against the Doctrine of the Trinity the Church of St. Mary wherein he preached was smote with Lightning This Paul saith he wrote a Book De Antichristi Deo