things above Reason though to a carnal Apprehension they seem contrary to Reason Why else doth our Saviour pronounce them blessed that have not seen and yet believed viz. as St. Thomas did that Christ is their Lord and their God This is another great Fortress of the Socinians from which they tell us in the Doctor 's Language That Articles of Faith above the apprehension of Reason are like the Ravings in Bedlam p. 56. c. 1. A cast of Tertullian's Montanism Credo quia impossibile and that excess of Confidence he means our Christian Faith in defect of Reason is a certain symptom of Madness To this Fortress as their Frontier Garison all the Socinians resort nothing can be believed which cannot be understood and comprehended by Reason So Schlinchtingius against Meisner It implies a Contradiction that what exceeds the reach of Reason should be made an Article of Faith As if when the God of Heaven revealing his Will doth injoyn any Commandment or requires the belief of any Proposition upon his Authority which the reason of his Creatures is not able to comprehend or demonstrate to itself he did enjoyn the belief of Contradictions As in our Author's instance when Abraham believed against Hope and against his Reason he believed on the Authority of God that required him to offer up his only Son Isaac And why may we not as well believe that God sent his Eternal Son to be Incarnate and come down from Heaven for our Redemption tho' we cannot comprehend it we ought to believe the thing tho' we cannot comprehend the manner Natural Faith relieth upon natural Reason but Divine Faith upon Revelation which may be above but not against Reason If you require any other Testimony it is not Faith Vides saith St. Augustine non est fides what thou assentest to because thou seest a reason for it is not Faith Faith is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 That properly is Faith which gives up its assent to a Proposition on the Testimony of him that propounds it and in this case we say with the Doctor Let God be true and Humane Reason a Lyar. Humane Reason hath the judgment of Discretion the judgment of Decision belongs to the Scriptures to the Scriptures I say not as understood by any private Interpretation but as interpreted by the Analogy of Faith by the Harmony of the Old and New Testament and by the general Consent of the best Teachers in all Ages and to this we shall Appeal for the Decision of this great Truth That our Saviour is the Eternal Son of God There are certainly more plain Contradictions in the Arian Doctrines in this viz. That there should be an Omnipotent and Omniscient God that created all things and knows the secrets of all hearts and that this should be a created God for the Arians grant Christ to be the Creator of the World That God should be reconciled to Man that by Transgression is his Enemy hating and hateful to God without any satisfaction to his Justice this is to reconcile Light and Darkness Heaven and Hell or that a Finite Creature as a Created God must be could satisfy an infinitely offended Justice Nor is there any Article of our Christian Faith that seems so contrary to Reason as is their measuring of an Infinite Essence by Finite Reason that which measureth should be able to contain the thing that is measured Again To give Divine Worship to a Creature by what Name soever it be dignified or distinguished which is due only to the Almighty God our Creator is contrary both to sound Reason and Scripture which the Socinians some of them at least do and on their own Principles are guilty of Idolatry The Difference among the Socinians concerning giving Divine Worship to Christ will save us the labour of proving them to be Idolaters if Christ be not the Eternal Son of God Socinus would not hold him for a Christian that would not worship Christ with Divine Worship But Christianus Frankin Francis David and some others who agreed with Socinus that Christ was but a Man urge this Argument to prove Socinus and his Followers to be Idolaters because they worshipped him whom they believed to be but a Creature The Argument is thus formed As great as is the distance between a Creator and a Creature so great ought the difference be of the Honour that is given to the Creator from that which is given to the Creature but the distance between the Creator and Creature is the greatest distance therefore there ought to be the greatest difference in the Honour that is given to the Creator from that which is given to a Creature Hence they conclude Socinus and his Followers who worshipped Christ with Divine Worship were Idolaters But to this they answer That if it be the pleasure of God to have it so so it must be and for this they quote St. John 5.23 That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father To this Franken replys That by Socinu 's own Doctrine the Scripture he says must not be believed because it is contrary to Reason and therefore there is some other hidden sence in that Scripture which must be searched out N. B. and Franken urgeth Deut. 6.13 repeated Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And it is farther urged that Crellius saith the word only in John 17.3 where Christ says This is life eternal to know thee the only true God that by it Christ excludes himself from being the true God And by the same word say his Adversaries Christ excludes himself from being the Object of Divine Worship This Franken confirms farther against Socinus from Isa 42.8 My glory will I not give to another Isai 48.11 and observe who speaks I am Jehovah that is my name and my glory c. What Glory is that Gloria Jehovitatis mea as Calomus's Phrase is that is The Glory of my Godhead So in Jer. 3.18 That men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah art the most High Jehovah then is the Name of the most high God and his alone so that it cannot be given to any other who is not the most high God but this name Jehovah is given to Christ in the Scripture therefore he is the most high God This Argument shall be confirmed hereafter In the mean time we have gained this Point viz. That if Christ be the Object of Divine Worship as the Socinians grant then must he be the Eternal Son of God of the same Essence with his Father and as St. Paul speaks God over all blessed for ever Now if the word only in St. John exclude Christ from being the true God then the same word in Deut. and St. Matthew exclude him from Divine Worship wherefore if his being the true God be against the Reason of Socinians though never so plain in Scripture we must search out some other hidden sence as Socinus says
reason than as it is necessary for our encouragement to Holiness in order to Happiness we dishonour him because no other reason is worthy of his Majesty or Goodness This indeed is one great end viz. our Salvation in which the Glory of God and our Saviour are also concern'd that as we believe in God we should also believe in Christ John 5. and that all Men should honour the Son as they honour the Father and the honour of the Son tends to the honour of the Father therefore we need Faith in the Merits of Christ and his Intercession and Mediation to present our Prayers to God and that we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace Nor doth this derogate from the Glory due to God for all tends to the Glory of God the Father And he that honoreth not the Son 〈…〉 honoreth not the Father We cannot honour the Father more than by believing that he so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son to die for us for the greater the Gift is the greater is our Obligation to Gratitude and Obedience So that what the Doctor urgeth to the disparagement of Faith That the Precepts requiring Faith and the Promises encouraging it were calculated for those Primitive Times and are now ceased is to recommend Infidelity and not Faith and plain it is that his chief design is to exalt Natural Religion on the Ruins of Christian Faith which will also take off the Motives and Encouragements to Obedience and Thankfulness Chap. 6. In this Chapter he enquires what are those saving Truths to the belief whereof Eternal Life is promised These truths he says concern the Person in whom or the Word which we believe on credit of the Person Here he enquires first what kind of Person our Saviour requires us to believe him to be this Person he describes from 7 Dan. 13. To be one to whom was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all nations and kingdoms should serve him The Title there given him is the Son of Man which in the Jewish Idiom imports the eminence of the Subject spoken of that is a Man of some singular note but a Man still Another Idiom of the Jews for advancing a thing or Person was to intitle it to God as Rivers of God and Mountains of God so Man of God and Son of God by Daniel are made a Character of the greatest Beauty and Majesty but a Creature still He mentioneth also that Character which Christ assumed The only begotten Son of God these Characters speak him a Person of super-eminent and unmeasurable Greatness like his Emblem the Light and that is but a Creature which whatever the Traveller believes it to be still it is his faithful Guide But have we no other benefit from the Sun but its light only Doth it not also warm comfort and enliven us Yet the Scriptures gives more noble operations to Faith it is as much the life of the Soul as the Soul is of the Body it gives spirit and motion to every faculty of the Soul so the Apostle Gal. 2.20 I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me But our Doctor frustrates this Grace of God for if Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain what good can the Light do to a Traveller that wants legs and life or that is blind from his birth As to his two Idioms I only ask the Doctor Why when that Scripture calls Christ the Son of Man it means a Man of Eminence and Perfection So when it calls him the Son of God doth it not mean a perfect and supreme God The Doctor objects from John 10.36 that our Saviour spake nothing what he had been from Eternity when if ever he ought to have done it but only what he was in relation to other Messengers of God Smalcius confesseth that in this Scripture John 10.36 Christ affirmed himself to be God yet in his Answer to Smaglâ—cius he minceth the matter and says Christ did neither affirm nor deny himself to be God for he doth not say v. 30. Say ye that I blaspheme because I said I am God but say ye that I blaspheme because I said I am the Son of God But Smalcius says as the Doctor does That if Christ had been the very God he ought to have expresly affirmed it See Cloppenburgh's Anti-Smalcius p. 309. This of St. John being one of the best pieces of Armor wherein the Socinians put their trust to defend themselves against all the Arguments for our Saviour's Deity we must trie what Mettle it is made of P. 28. Col. 1. he thus infers That it seemeth plain as by other Evidence so by Christ's own words that a practical Faith is all that our Saviour requires for when the Jews came about him and said How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly And he in answer thereto called God his Father They took up Stones to stone him because said they thou being a Man makest thyself God He did not on so urgent occasion assert his Right but abating so much as exceeded their comprehension satisfied himself that he might satisfy them with what might be sufficient for their Conviction to Salvation Is it not written in your Law I have said you are God's c. He speaketh nothing of what he had been from Eternity in himself but what he was in relation to the World and in comparison with all other Messengers of God To them says he God sent his Word by their betters but it is not sent to me by my betters but by me to my inferiors They were sent into the World the common way and were afterward sanctified by receiving God's word N. B. but I was first sanctified and afterward sent and if they who were less extraordinary were honoured with a higher Title can it be Blasphemy in me who am their Superior if I take a meaner Title This Scripture is made the Corner-stone of all the Socinian Babel which they endeavour with all their Art and Might to establish and raise as a Tower of Defence against the Power of Heaven and Earth The late Author of Thoughts on Dr. Sherlock 's Vindication of the Trinity makes it the Subject of his Letter he says p. 3. c. 1. That Christ brought in a sence of Unction and Sanctification instead of a sence of Nature i. e. a Socinian sence instead of an Orthodox And c. 2. That the Orthodox as they call themselves can no way escape because if Christ made use of the reason taken from his Sanctification he has at the same time given away the former from the eternal Generation P. 4. c. 1. he says That the other Passages which Dr. Sherlock alledgeth for Confirmation viz. of the eternal Generation as that the Word was with God he
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
Service of God by the free Directions of their own Nature That to this end he sent his only begotten Son into the World teaching them That the best service of God consisteth in being like him and for their encouragement therein promising them upon their Repentance pardon of Sins past and everlasting Life This saith he is the Sum of the Gospel i. e. of his Naked Gospel Here is not a word of that Grace and Truth that came by Jesus nor that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself Making him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Not a word of that Redemption which St. Peter speaks of made for us by the precious Blood of the Son of God or that Christ redeemed the Church by his own Blood dying for our Sins and rising again for our Justification Revel 1. washing us in his own Blood from our Sins Not a word of that which St. Paul made his whole work to preach Christ crucified that others with him might know him and the power of his resurrection that we may be found in him not having our own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3.8 9. Nor that without the shedding of this Blood there could be no Remission of Sins But though the Apostle counts this knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord so excellent that all things else are but loss and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogs meat in comparison with it Yet the Doctor prefers his Natural Faith or his Carnal Reason above all this for there is not one word of all this to cover the Nakedness of his New-born Gospel but as the Socinians say God sent his only begotten Son into the World to teach them not to die for them how by the free Directions of their own Nature without any grace or assistance of the Spirit of God or any Revelations of that Grace and Truth that came by him That the best service of God consists in being like him to which end he supposeth the free Dictates of their own Nature are sufficient Deus nil fecit promising them upon their Repentance pardon of their Sins past and everlasting Life Which John Baptist and other Prophets had done before him Not a word of Christ's giving Repentance or that eternal Life is the gift of God which he grounds on that Repentance which flows from the free Directions of their own Nature What part Faith hath in all this is his next Enquiry which is to shew that it hath no part at all Enquiry II. He says is to shew What Changes or Additions later Ages have made in Matter of Faith He tells us p. 50. c. 2. That our Lord honoured it as the Great King did Daniel above all his Princes That he came into the World to advance it That he promised it eternal Life and both he and his Apostle make it half the Gospel we meet it in every page of the New Testament and on sight of its glory we talk as St. Peter did when confounded at the brightness of our Lord we know not what But our Author hath no sooner cried his Hosanna to Faith as the Jews did to Christ but presently proclaims his Crucifigite and casts this Daniel into a Lion's Den to be rent by such furious Beasts he first casts her from the Throne wherein Christ placed it and what the Gospel makes the Mother-Grace he makes the Mother-Error p. 51. c. 1. his words are This is the Mother-Error that whereas Faith is no better than a Retainer to Holiness we place it in the Throne as an Absolute Prince and think it our Duty to enlarge its Dominions as far and exalt its Prerogative as high as we can as if it were some precious Diamond valuable for its Brightness Hardness or other irrespective Vertue of its own Doth this Author know what he says or consider whereof he affirms these things If it be of that implicite Faith required in the Church of Rome or that naked Faith of the Gnosticks or Solifidians viz. a bare profession of Faith in Christ separate from Obedience he only beats the Air but if of that Faith required in the Gospel and professed in the Church of England the nature whereof he cannot but know then he striks at the very Life of Christian Religion for that is a Faith working by Love a Faith in Christ's meritorious Death Passion Resurrection and Intercession which the Socinians will not admit of A Faith that purifieth the Heart that teacheth us that Christ dying for all all were dead in Sins and Trespasses and that he died for all that henceforth they should not live to themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again this is the true Christian Faith grounded on the Grace of God which bringeth salvation and hath appeared to all men teaching them that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts they should live righteously soberly and godly in this present world This the end of manifesting the Gospel as St. Paul Rom. 16.26 This the Obedience of Faith This is the Faith which we preach in the Church of England and which the Doctor so opposeth and vilifieth It is evident that the Faith which this Doctor would degrade is that which hath for its Object Christ crucified bearing our Sins making an Atonement bearing the Chastisement of our Peace reconciling us to God by the Sacrifice on the Cross All which he would resolve into a Natural Faith in the Veracity of God and so makes our Faith in Christ crucified the chiefest Notion of a justifying Faith to be of none effect But let us hear the Reason he gives for his degrading of Faith p. 50. c. 2. We consider not saith he that two of the reasons which induced our Lord to call so importunately for it are expired Those Reasons I suppose we had p. 19. c. 2. 1. The Difficulties of believing 2. The Danger of professing it To which there needs no other Answer then what he himself hath given p. 50. c. 1. That Faith must necessarily be called for with importunity suitable both to the Difficulties and Dangers which at that time encompassed it and to the serviceableness which at all times accompanies it For is there not now also need of Faith to strengthen us against the Temptations of the World the Flesh and the Devil Or is our Fight now only against Flesh and Bloud are there not Spiritual Wickednesses also Are there not such Lusts as are as dear as a right Hand or Eye that must be cut off And what is it that giveth us the Victory over these and a world of others but our Faith Were not our Faith serviceable to these ends he might have some excuse for calling our Saviour a humersome and capricious Lord as he doth p. 51. c. 1. and p. 57. c. 2. that without any other motive than his unaccountable will imposeth a
them that believed not Compare Psal 45. v. 6 7. with Heb. 1.8 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter He whose Throne is for ever and ever is God but Christ's Throne is for ever and ever therefore he is God Both these Propositions are express Scripture The next Scripture shall be that of Isai 7.14 A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Emanuel compared with Mat. 1.23 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken viz. Isai 7.14 by the Prophet saying Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emanuel There is an Objection cast in our way which must be removed before we proceed Object It is said Matth. 1.21 The Angel of the Lord which appeard to Joseph told him that he should call his name Jesus How then was this of the Prophet fulfilled They shall call his name Emanuel Ans That Names are of two sorts some for distinction of Persons as proper Names others serve for Description of the Nature or Offices of a Person in the first respect he is called Jesus a Saviour there being no other Saviour but he for there is no other name given to man whereby he may be saved The other of Emanuel describes his Nature what he should be viz. God with us God manifested in the flesh So the same Prophet Isai 9.6 His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor c. And Jer. 23.6 This is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness And Luke 1.35 That which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God And it is observed that both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New do signify to be as well as to be called Justin Martyr Tertullian and other Ancients solved this Objection made by the Jews Venit Emanuel quia venit quod Emanuel significat The Emanuel is come because he is come who was signified by that name God with us not only to reconcile us to God but to be God Incarnate The Argument then is this Emanuel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in the Divine Essence Christ is Emanuel therefore he is God in the Divine Essence That the word God is to be understood of the most High God the Socinians grant But Crellius objects that the word est should be added and so the meaning is God is with us But when St. Matthew expounds the name without that Addition there is great Reason to reject it and if that had been the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the name as given by the Prophet St. Matthew would not have omitted it it being of great concern to the Glory of God and the Instruction of the Church The meaning of the Name therefore is not God is with us i. e. as says Crellius to help and assist us but Christ is God with us for the name Emanuel being put into English and applyed unto Christ it will appear whether St. Matthew or Crellius gives the best Interpretation This is St. Matthew's sence Christ is God with us i. e. God and Man And this is Crellius his Nonsence Christ God with Man is Is not this to add to and alter the sence of the Scripture Malach. 3.1 compared with Matth. 11.10 Behold I send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple This is he saith St. Matthew of whom it is written Behold I send my Messenger before thy face c. It is agreed that John the Baptist was this Messenger spoken of and the Argument is this He before whom John Baptist was to be sent to prepare his way is the God of Israel but Christ is he before whom John Baptist was to be sent c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is proved by Malachy where he that speaks is called the God of Israel and Lord of Hosts This Socinus grants The second Proposition is proved by St. Matthew applying it to Christ This is he of whom it is written c. The Sum of what is objected to this Argument is That the Text in Malachy is corrupted and instead of reading He shall prepare the way before me it should be read He shall prepare the way before thee But then how comes it to pass that no one Copy of that of Malachy or this in St. Matthew reads otherwise than we do He will not say they are all corrupted and we say none are corrupted But they ask How is it that what Malachy reads in the first Person He shall prepare the way before me Christ renders in the second Person He shall prepare the way before thee Ans This Objection will improve our Argument for when Malachy says He shall prepare the way before me which is spoken of the God of Israel and our Saviour renders it He shall prepare the way before thee and applys it to himself this proves that Christ was that God of Israel who spake in Malachy and so proves the Identity of the Essence of God the Father and the Son Moreover by comparing this place of Malachy with the Interpretation which our Saviour gives of it in St. Matthew we infer from Malachy the Unity of the Essence of the God of Israel and Christ and from that in Matthew we learn a distinction of Persons which had not been so intelligible if Christ had not changed the first Person or the word my into the second Person or the word thy in St. Matth. Deut. 6.13 compared with Matth. 4.10 the words are the same Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The Argument is this He that is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship is the God of Israel Christ is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is express Scripture the second is granted by the Socinians therefore the Conclusion is undeniable Crellius when he would prove that Christ is not the true God from Joh. 20. This is life eternal to know thee only the â—rue God says That the word only excludes all others from being the true God Schichtingius is of another mind and says That this particle only when it is spoken of God doth not exclude those that depend on God in the thing spoken of Now if Crellius speaks the truth then Christ is not to be worshipped because the word only excludes him If Schichtingius speaks the truth then Christ may be the true God because the word only doth not exclude him Volkelius says That seeing Christ is subordinate to God in worshipping of Christ we worship God who hath given him so great Power and Dignity Ans This is against the Command that excludes all others for if Christ be a Man wholly distinguished
which I quote p. 3. speaking to the Christians Mahomet says Say not God hath a Companion equal to him because you know the contrary P. 4. God created the Heavens and the Earth and then ascended into Heaven P. 44. Zachary prayed to God for a Progeny the Angels declared to him from God That he should have a Son called John he shall affirm the Messias to be the Word of God Jesus is with God as is Adam God created him out of the Earth I do not associate God him with any one and acknowledge no other Lord but him P. 46. There is no God but God alone the Omnipotent and Wise P. 86. There be some that alter the Scripture in reading it and will make us believe that what we read is in the Scripture though it be not they blaspheme and know it well God gave not to Men the Scripture Knowledge and Prophesies to say to the People Worship me instead of God but that they should say Observe exactly what you read in the Scripture God doth not command you to adore Angels or Prophets P. 48. We believe in what was inspired by Moses Jesus and generally by all the Prophets Abraham was not of them that believe in many Gods P. 49. Follow ye the Law of Abraham that is pleasing to him he profest the Unity of the Divine Majesty he was not of them that believe in many Gods P. 94. Certainly they that believe Messias the Son of Mary to be God are impious The Messias commanded the Children of Israel to worship God his and their Lord. Paradise is forbidden to him that shall say God hath a Companion equal to him Such as affirm there are Three Gods are impious P. 86. The Messias the Son of Mary is a Prophet and Apostle of God like to the Prophets that came before him His Mother is Holy say to him Who can hinder God to extirminate the Messias and his Mother P. 86. Of the Jews he says few of them shall believe because of their Malice and Blasphemies vomited against Mary They said We have slain the Messias Jesus the Son of Mary the Prophet and Apostle of God Certainly they slew him not neither crucified him they crucified one that resembled him such as doubt it are in a manifest Error for God took him up to himself Such as have the knowledge of the Scripture ought to believe in Jesus before his Death he shall be a Witness against them in the Day of Judgment P. 80 81. You shall hear many Christians that have an inclination towards true Believers and have Priests and Religious that are humble and their eyes full of tears say Lord we believe in thy Law write us in the Number of them that profess thy Unity P. 95. He shall say in the Day of Judgment O Jesus didst thou injoyn thy People to Worship Thee and thy Mother as two Gods Jesus shall answer Praised be thy Name I will take heed of speaking what is not true I delivered nothing but what thou commandest me to speak viz. Worship God your Lord and mine p. 99. Infidels believe not in his Unity p. 101. The Jews say That the Son of God is most just and powerful The Christians say That the Messias is the Son of God their words are like the words of Infidels but God shall lay on them his Curse p. 153. Consider how they blaspheme they adore their Doctors and Priests and the Messias also the Son of Mary who commanded them to worship One God alone there is but one sole God there is nothing equal to him they would extinguish the Ligqt of God but he shall not suffer them How the Naked Gospel agreeth with the Alchoran in most of these particulars might be shewn but he that reads it will be soon satisfied that it is a Commentary on that Text. But since the Doctor or some one for him hath written his Vindication I shall briefly consider what is said in Defence of those Propositions condemned by the University And first I observe That in these Propositions and what may be added to them from the Naked Gospel the quintessence of the Arian and Socinian Controversies is contracted and composed Secundum Artem and by him or some other on his behalf recommended as a safe means to promote a General Comprehension and an enlarged Charity but to the destruction of Catholick Verity Now because these Propositions are not only published in several Impressions of that Libel but defended by the Author or some other on his behalf and the Gangreen begins to spread among prophane and unstable Wits which too much abound it seemed necessary to provide an Antidote against those old Errors to which the Author hath given a new Resurrection like that which he maintains of our Bodies not in the same form but another more agreeable to his new Divinity and Philosophy and equally opposite to the written Gospel as understood by the Primitive Fathers and received by the Church of England The difference which the Author fancieth to be made in the Gospel is the preaching of the Doctrine of the Eternal Deity of our Saviour which this Author explodes as not to be comprehended by his Reason and not agreeable to that Natural Religion which he makes the Foundation of the Gospel now if there be any alteration made it is by those which have denied the Eternal Deity of our Saviour for as I said while St. John was yet living Ebion and Cerinthus began that Heresie Ebion taught That Christ was a meer Man and had no existence before he was born into the World of which the Church of Ephesus then complained to St. John desiring him to write in Confutation of that Heresie and Justin Martyr and Ireneus brand this Heresie as did Ignatius before them and St. John before him who called such as denied that Jesus Christ was come in the Flesh Deceivers and Antichrists Cerinthus held a pre-existence of Reason or the Word which he says descended on our Saviour at his Baptism and ascended from him into Heaven when he was crucified for which Opinions St. John meeting him in a Bath fled from his company as fearing least the Walls of the Bath wherein he was might fall on him Against these Heresies St. John being importun'd wrote his Gospel purposely to assert the Divine Essence of the Son of God as he tells us ch 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name And besides the Historical part of that Gospel the whole is one continued Argument for the Confirmation of this Truth which we shall have occasion to speak of more at large and shall only observe here what he says 1 Job 5.20 We know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding to know him that is true This is the true God and eternal life And in the 2 Epistle v. 7. Many deceivers are
which term he may comprehend all sort of Heresies an universal Toleration without any reserve which hath been pleaded for in former times 2. That through the whole Book it is not so much the manner of the Generation that is insisted on but the Eternity of it is denied and to this end the Arguments of the Arrians are applauded and the Reasons and Scriptures that affirm it are either suppressed or ridicul'd To begin with the Propositions referred to in the Decree he tells us That Mahomet did profess all the Articles of the Christian Faith but Mahomet did not profess the Eternal Generation of the Son of God therefore this is no Article of the Christian Faith in the Doctor 's Opinion What the Charity of the Socinians is toward such as hold the Doctrine of the Church of England we may learn from Smalcius at the end of his Book concerning the Divinity of Christ We doubt not to affirm boldly that not one of all those who believe Jesus Christ of himself God can ever by any means have certain hope of Eternal Life by vertue of his Opinion concerning Christ Hence they call us Polytheists Antichristians and say we are not worthy of the Name of Christians This is Charity enlarged In the same Paragraph he says When by nice and hot Disputes concerning especially the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the Minds of the People had been long confounded so that to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry then was there a tempting opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a reformer of such corruptions as were both too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied Now what did this Impostor reform but the Doctrine of the Trinity denying the Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost as such corruptions which were too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied It is a credible History of those Times which I have related that one Sergius a Monk and some other Apostate Christians join'd with Mahomet in compiling the Alchoran these retained so much veneration for our Saviour as to grant him what the Socinians do a kind of Divinity for they acknowledge him to be a true Prophet and so he may be called Divine as we call St. John by way of Eminency The Divine and so our Socinian Reformers agree with the Mahometan some say the Doctrine of the Trinity was laid aside to make way for the Turks to become Christians but we find a contrary effect that many Christians turn Turks I hope the Reader is satisfied by what I collected out of the Alchoran that Mahomet and his Arian Genius purposely designed to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and to represent our Saviour as a meer Man though as a Messenger of God And what less is implied in these words of the Doctor 's That to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry The next Proposition is This When the great Question concerning the eternity of his i. e. Christ's Godhead first embroiled the World Constantine condemned it as a silly Question fitter for Fools and Children than for Priests or wise Men. Note here The Question was not concerning the Manner of the Generation of our Saviour but the Eternity of his Godhead and how justly this Censure of Constantine's was past on that Question this Author says we may discover in three particulars 1. It was impertinent to our Lord's Design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplator's own purpose 3. It is dangerous This is Socinianism in grain Now because the Author would excuse himself from this Charge by pleading that he only relates the Opinion of Constantine the consideration of that good Emperor's management and determination of this great Question is more strictly and fully to be weighed This Author tells us p. 31. Col. 2. Such was the judgment of the great Constantine when the Game was first set on foot How it was then by the Arian party represented to him is not evident they dealt subtily but after that he had called the Nicene Council and was fully informed of the state of the Question he was so far from thinking it silly and vain that he wrote Letters to several Churches to inform them that after mature consideration the Opinion of Arius was condemned branded the Arians with the Name of Porphyrians caused their Books to be burnt and threatned death to any that should conceal them and hearing of the miserable end of that wretched man as it is described by Socrates he made it his business to extirpate it No doubt the Doctor knew these passages related of Constantine as well as those which he mentions calling it a Silly Question and fitter for Boys than for Priests what can he plead then for proclaiming the one and wholly suppressing the other which were Constantine's second and best Thoughts and his setled Judgment after mature deliberation Yet our Author still ridicules the Athanasian Doctrine as a Pushpin Controversie and says that Leonas reprimanded that party with Go and play the Fools at home Leonas was an Arian sent by Constantius the Arian Emperour to awe the Council nor did he bid them go and play the Fools at home I find no such thing in the place quoted by the Doctor viz. Socrates l. 2. c. 23. But there is a full Character of this Leonas in Soz. l. 4. c. 22. how that Acacius an Arian Bishop held private Conference with him and consulted for that Interest but could not prevail insomuch that when both Parties were met in his Lodgings and he found the Arian Party like to be baffled he bid them in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think no good Man would translate Go and play the Fools at home Socrates l. 2. c. 40. which signifies only Go and talk it out in the Church Leonas supposing they would be more modest and reverent in that Holy Place than in his House But of this the Historian observes in the next chap. 42 That Acacius and Eudoxius made great advantage For says he they perceiving the Indignation of the Emperour against Macedonius and other Hereticks deposed many of them and advanced Eudoxius to the Bishoprick of Constantinople for the contention was not so much for Religion as for Preferment the contending Parties having deposed each other and Acacius and Eudoxius with their Party did especially endeavour to depose the adverse Party and coined their New Creeds to that end being so confident of the Emperour's Favour and hence grew those various Confessions of some Councils under Constantius whereof p. 34. c. 4. the Doctor says That Socrates reckoned no less than Nine not Nine Councils but Confessions of which the Historian gives this particular Account calling them a Labyrinth of Expositions two of which were
effectual opperative Faith which all that profess to believe both these Articles have not and to which we appropriate Salvation and therefore the Doctor 's disputing in general of a Notional Faith and a Credulity as he calls it and under that Notion condemns is a Sophistical way of arguing much worse than any that Volkelius himself is guilty of for he discourseth of such a Faith as includes Repentance and Evangelical Obedience not such as is the effect of Natural Reason but of the Opperation of the Spirit of Patefaction as he calls it but more plainly such as he describes from St. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man such as he saith are all that are destitute of the Divine Spirit doth not understand the things of the spirit of God and v. 9. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard nor the mind conceived what things God hath prepared for them that love him but God hath revealed them to us by his spirit Spiritu Patifactionis l. 3. c. 14. If these and other Opinions of Volkelius be compared with our Doctor 's Natural Faith it would appear to any impartial Reader that the Doctor is the grosser Socinian of the two On this Subject he spends several Chapters the Contents of the first is to shew he says in what sence Faith justifies but indeed he shews that it doth not justifie and first he condemns it as the unhappy Occasion of the Gnosticism which so much troubled St. Paul by corrupting the Disciples minds from the Simplicity of the Gospel which is all he says and he might as well charge good Laws with all the Villanies that are committed against them for the Scripture had foretold there must be Heresies and there would be Schisms and that men would walk after their own lusts and deny the Lord that bought them though the Evangelical Faith do no more cause these than the Sun doth those Works of Darkness which are committed in its light To make amends for this he says 2ly That it is so happy as to be honoured by our Lord and his Apostles as to be made the sole Condition of our Salvation But after this he asks p. 10. And now what need of Repentance of running the Gantelope of Mortification crossing our Appetites and afflicting our Souls As if the Doctrine of Faith did not include or presuppose Repentance or as if any sort of Repentance were available without Faith and as if the merit of good Works were a necessary and efficacious Ingredient to the Cause of Justification for thus he joyns Justification by Works upon account of Natural Religion with Justification by Faith upon account of the Gospel Hence in the 12th Page he makes a large Harangue Col. 2. What are the great merits of Faith which may any way entitle it to so great a Reward as Everlasting Life Whatever can pretend to worth must make its claim good by shewing how it partaketh the Nature of God who is the first Good but to be credulous is so far from the power of Divine Life that it is a plain confession of Weakness it is nothing else but leaning on another for want of knowledge of its own The simple believeth every word but a wise man looketh well to his going said the wisest of all Men and experience tells us that Children and Dotards Women and Fools the Sick and Ignorant are most easie and by how much any Man is wiser by so much he is warier that he be not imposed on Had it any worth we should have heard of it in Moses and the Prophets and the Philosophers would have allowed it a place among the Vertues and the Old Testament mentions it but once or twice and that not by way of Precept but occasionly and what reward can it possibly deserve if I believe either I do it on good reason or not if I see good reason for my belief I cannot deserve reward because no Man can choose but must necessarily believe as far as reason requires if I believe without reason then I am a Fool and so far from deserving a reward that I deserve blame and if it seem hard to justify our Lord's wisdom in promising so great a reward to a performance that deserves none at all it will appear no less so to justify his goodness in imposing such a Task no less difficult than worthless for whereas no small part of the good Tidings of the Gospel is our Manumission from the Burden of Moses's Law the Yoke of Christ will seem harder of the two it is easier for a rich Man to sacrifice whole Hecatombs when he hath Wealth enough to purchase them than to pull out his Eyes yet can a Man easier pull out the eye of his Body than his Reason which is not only the eye but the heart for it is his very definition without which he cannot be a Man it is God's Image and the Apostle exhorts us to put on the new Man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him Now that God should print his Image in our hearts require us to renew it yet promise eternal Life for reward if we deface it is a saying harder to be believed than all the Ceremonies of Moses's Law were to be practised This and more says he is objected against Faith in general and against what Faith but in particular against that of the Holy Trinity and the Eternal Deity of Christ Now when the Doctor so industriously suggests all these Objections against Faith and takes no care to assoile them he betrays that Cause which he would seem to defend as it will appear in his fourth Chapter The Socinians affirm with our Doctor That nothing must be believed that cannot be apprehended and understood by Reason To this we say that it is not contrary to any Principle of right Reason that the Eternal Creator and Law-giver in revealing his will should propose Articles to be assented to upon his own Authority revealing them though his Creatures cannot by their Reason apprehend how those Articles should be true Divine Faith is grounded on a Divine Testimony as it is Divine T 〈…〉 de Pae 〈…〉 Neque enim quia bonum est id circo ausculture debemus sed quia Deus precepit For we do obey the Command not because we judge it good but because God commands it And as St. Augustin Judicatur ad id quod possumus creditur ad quod non possumus How can the corrupt and finite reason of Man comprehend the Reasonableness of an Alwise and Infinite God We allow to all Governors some Arcana Imperii which the Vulgar cannot judge of and shall we not allow it to the only Wise God the Governor of the World is there nothing above the sphear of natural Reason How then comes it to pass that it is baffled in so many natural things in Sympathies and Antipathies and Occult Qualities the Effects whereof are demonstrated but the Causes cannot be known And shall Man
do in this Chapter they were such as our Saviour had exasperated against himself calling them Thieves and Robbers that came to no other end but to kill and destroy whereas he came to give them Eternal Life which St. Joh. 20. says was the end of his Writing the Gospel That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name This our Saviour proves stiling himself the good Shepherd that came to lay down his Life for his Sheep i. e. all that should hear his Voice and that they might not doubt of his power to do it he tells them v. 18. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again And this he was to do by Commission or Commandment from his Father who loved him v. 17. As being of one will with his Father in this v. 15. As the Father knoweth me even so know I my Father Again he proves his Divine Power by his Works which were such as the Jews confest the Devil himself could not do and to them he appeals v. 37. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not Now the same Divine Works in specie argues the same Divine Power and therefore our Saviour tells them I and my Father are one that is as the Jews themselves understood him One in Essence as well as in Operation the Jews on these Doctrines and Arguments of our Saviour take up Stones to stone him as guilty of Blasphemy who being but a Man made himself God for v. 36. as Christ himself saith it was because he said I am the Son of God so that it seems to be the Son of God and to be God were equivalent terms and so understood by the Jews for by either of these they concluded that he made himself equal with God To silence the Jews Accusation he urgeth a Scripture which they own'd being written in their Law Psal 82.6 Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods and the Argument is thus formed and applied à majore ad minus If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God This his being the Son of God he proves by another Argument from the Works which he did and they acknowledged that none but God could do therefore he argues thus He that doth the Works of God and such as you grant none but God can do he is God and ye ought to believe that he is in God and God in him v. 38. That is that they are of the same Nature and Essence and in this sence the Jews still understood him for they still sought to take him and stone him So that our Saviour still maintained his Doctrine That he was the Son of God in that sense which the Jews counted Blasphemy our Saviour doth not draw them off from their sense of his being the Son of God by Nature to a sense of his being so only by Unction and Sanctification i. e. to a Socinian instead of an Orthodox But as the Gentleman observes our Saviour answered them in profound Wisdom with regard to the Circumstances of Place Time and Persons all which we shall now consider and manifest our Saviour's Wisdom in respect of all these 1. As to the Persons they were resolved Enemies to the Life and Doctrine of our Saviour and such as would not believe him though he told them never so plainly as our Saviour says when they ask'd him the like ensnaring Question v. 25. If you be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus answered them I told you and ye believe me not because you are not of my sheep Their present Honour and Interest was a barr to their belief How can ye believe that seek the honour that cometh of men and not that which cometh of God They understood not that plainer Parable in v. 6. of the true and false Shepherds And our Saviour tells his Disciples Luke 8. v. 10. To you it is given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God but to others in parables that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand These were those obstinate Jews in whom was fulfilled the Prophecy of Isai 6.9 as St. Matthew relates ch 13.13 for this cause probably our Saviour in his Wisdom thought it not fit to cast Pearls before Swine he knew they would not believe though he had asserted his Deity never so expresly 2ly As to the time it was the Wisdom of our Saviour not to expose himself to the Rage of the Jews the Time designed for his Death and the Manner of it viz. by Crucifixion not by Stoning being not yet come and he had many Doctrines to instruct his Disciples more perfectly in them some they could not yet bear and some they knew but imperfectly even that of the Resurrection and these things required his Presence with them for a longer time and therefore he withdrew himself from them Unless this Gentleman will make himself wiser than his Maker he must acknowledge that when our Saviour answered those Jews so as to silence their Accusation of Blasphemy and stop their Rage who sought to stone him though he did not by that Argument which he used assert his Deity which yet he still maintained that he used his profound Wisdom in the Argument which he urged But what if from this Scripture from which this Gentleman would prove that Christ is called the Son of God by vertue of his Mission only it shall appear that he is the Son of God by Nature and Essence may we not then retort that he only casts a Mist on the eyes of the Simple and hath a Spirit of Contradiction if it shall appear that the first Question was Whether our Saviour was the Christ as it is clear v. 24. i. e. the Messiah If 2dly It appears that the Messiah was the Natural Son of God then this Scripture from whence he makes the Objection will be an utter Confutation of it Now this was the sence which the Jews had viz. that Christ or the Messiah was the Son of God and they accused him of Blasphemy because he whom they thought to be but a meer Man made himself the Messias that is God for they would by no means grant him to be the Messiah That the Messiah was to be the Son of God R. Sclemo proves from the second Psalm of which he says our Fathers expounded this Psalm concerning the Messiah of whom it is said Kiss the Son lest he be angry and thou art my Son which explains what is meant by the word Son viz. that it could not agree with any other Interpretation as that of Be ye instructed or worship purely for the Psalmist expounds himself for it being said v. 7. Thou art my Son viz. he whom the Gentiles conspired against it follows according
be divided as Enemies by your strife about small and unnecessary things These Actions are more agreeable to the Ignorance of Boys than to the Wisdom of Priests and wise Men but seeing you have the same Faith and the same Opinion of our Religion and our Law requires concord of Minds and the Controversie between you doth not concern the Substance of Religion there ought not to be any discord between you This he said before he had been duly informed of the State of the Controversie what his thoughts were afterward you shall hear anon But as Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. says neither the Emperours Letters nor the Endeavours of Hosius could compose the Dissention the Emperour therefore resolved to summon a General Council at Nice in Bithinia to which all the Bishops of Europe Africa and Asia were called and there met above 300 Bishops besides Presbyters Deacons c. many of whom were eminent for Wisdom in Speaking Holiness of Life Patience in Suffering Modesty and Meekness of Manners these being assembled the Emperour appears the Bishops having done their Reverence he sate not down himself until he had beckned to them to sit down and he spake first exhorting them to Peace and Unity and whereas they had accused one another in several Libels the day before he injoyn'd them to burn those Libels and to forgive each other as they expected Christ should forgive them Then he gave them leave to propose the Differences that concern'd Religion of which Eusebius in the Third Book of the Life of Constantine gives this Account That many things being proposed by both Parties the Emperour attended with great patience and intention of mind weighing what was offered by both Parties moderating and allaying their heats and by his own arguments convincing some and perswading others they were at last brought to an agreement which was committed to Writing Some particulars whereof saith Socrates l. 1. c. 8. I will repeat least any should condemn the Proceedings of that Council or as Sabinus did account them ignorant and simple Men as particularly he did Eusebius who subscribed not until he had strictly examined the Controversie however he commends the Emperour as being very skilful in the Matters of Faith Socrates also commends Eusebius Pamphyli as a faithful Witness of what was done in that Council The Faith then agreed on was drawn into the Form which is now in our Liturgy to which they added an Anathema against such as should affirm That there was a time when the Son of God was not and that was made of things that were not or that he had some other Substance or Essence created or subject to change To this 318 Bishops subscribed five only refused because of the word Consubstantial whereof Eusebius and Theognis afterward recanted and were reconciled the rest kept in Banishment with Arius This Eusebius having after long deliberation assented to the Nicene Creed sends a Copy of it to his People of Caesarca with a particular Account how it was examined and tells his People That it was the same which he had received from the Bishops his Predecessors when he was first instructed by them and which they professed at their Baptism and which he would defend with his Life he tells them the Emperour confirm'd it first with the addition of the word Consubstantial to which they all agreed And to remove the prejudices which his People might have conceiv'd against him for standing out so long till he was sentenced to Banishment and then conforming he tells them with how great Judgment he considered both the Reasons of his Dissent and of his Consent suspending his Assent from the first to the last however as long as he met with any thing that offended him but when after due examination he found the sence of the words controverted to agree with that Faith which he at first received he embraced them And what those were he gives a particular Account viz. 1. These words were examined Of the Substance of the Father concerning which there arose divers Questions and Answers and after Examination it was agreed That the words of the Substance signified That the Son was of the Father but not as a part of the Father to this I consented as also to the word Consubstantial for the sake of Peace and that I might not fall from the right understanding of it in like manner to the words Begotten not made because it was urged that the word made was common to the Creatures which were made by the Son to which he had no likeness being of a more excellent Substance which the Scripture teach was of the Father by a secret manner of Generation not to be expressed and this Consubstantiality was not to be in a corporeal manner as in mortal Creatures for it was not by division of Substance nor Abscission nor change of the Father's Substance and Power because this was different from all those but it signifies that the Son had no likeness with the Creatures that were made by him but was in all things like to the Father by whom he was begotten and of no other Substance and to this we consented knowing that many ancient famous Bishops and learned Writers speaking of the Divinity of the Father and the Son used the same word The Emperour also expressed the same sence of the word Consubstantial which he said Was not to be understood as if the Son were of the Father by Division or any Section as in corporeal Substances because an intellectual and immaterial Nature admits not of the Affections of Bodies And that you may know something of the History of Arius I shall give you this brief Account Arius was a Priest of Alexandria in Egypt a Man infinitely desirous of Glory and Novelty as Ruffinus who knew him reports one that corrupted many Virgins who had professed Virginity he and some others of that Church whereof Alexander was Bishop a Learned and Orthodox Divine who suspecting that the Ancient Heresie which denied the Godhead of our Saviour was crept into this Church as the Event shews it was summoned his Clergy and discoursing to them concerning the Mystery of the Trinity told them of the Unity in the Trinity Arius one of the Presbyters skilful in Logick supposing the Bishop affected to the Doctrine of Sabellius thus objects to his Bishop If the Father begot the Son then he that was begotten had a beginning of his Existence and so there was a time when the Son was not and if so he had his Existence out of nothing Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. From these unheard of Assertions he provoked many to consider that Question and from this Spark a great Fire was kindled which spread through all Egypt Lybia and the Upper Thebais and many other Provinces for many others favoured Arius especially Eusebius of Nicomedia which much displeased Alexander so that by a Council of Bishops he removed Arius and some others and writes to the neighbouring Bishops to this purpose That
was apparently designed by the Compilers for some special use to fence the Catholick Faith from the Corruptions Depravations Doubtings and Contradictions of Hereticks as in the Nicene Creed the Oneness of our Lord Jesus Christ was added when the Arians opposed the Apostolick Tradition and by corrupting detected the words of Scripture to their sence which Dr. H. shews more largely in his Note on 1 Joh. 5.7 and of such Additions he says That when the Church hath thought meet to erect an additional Bulwark against Hereticks such as reject them may be deemed to side with those Hereticks p. 86. And this is the summ of what he says concerning the Athanasian Creed the Doctrine whereof he says is well nigh all to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons against those Hereticks who had brought Novel Propositions into the Church of which Doctrinal part he says that Athanasius being only a Father of the Church they were not necessary to be explicitely acknowledged nor absolutely imposed on any but such as were Members of some Church that had actually received Athanasius's Explication or than it appeared concordant with the more authentick universal Confessions as every Doctrinal Proposition of it will be found to do As for the Damnatory Sentences Dr. Ham. supposeth them to be interpreted in opposition to those Heresies that had invaded the Church not that it defined it to be a damnable sin to fail in understanding or believing the full matter of any of those Explications Dr. Ham. having as a wise Master Builder laid this Foundation shews how necessary it is for the end of building on it a holy Life and an uniform universal Obedience to the Commands of Christ in opposition to Idolatry Formality Hypocrisie and to Sacriledge Profaneness and Impiety as also to improve the Vertues of Obedience to Superiours Charity to all Mankind Purity of Flesh and Spirit Contentedness and taking up the Cross and lastly how useful it is to confute false Doctrines 1. Of the Romanists as Penances Indulgences of Supererrogating Merits of Attrition improved into Contrition by the Priest's aid without change of Life Dispensableness of Oaths Arts of Equivocation Purgatory Cessation of Allegiance and especially of Infallibility 2ly Of the Solifidians and Fiduciaries the Predestinarians and irrespective Decrees of Election and Reprobation of the Divine Prescience against the Socinians who deny that God foresees all things and though they grant his Omnipresence and Omnipotence yet question the infinity of his Science which is apparently false as appears by God's Predictions to the Prophets When I considered the Writings of both these Doctors their Foundations and Superstructures it brought to my mind those two sorts of Builders and Building mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 7. the one built on that approved Rock of St. Peter 's Confession the other on that Sand whereon Arius Socinus and that Man of an ominous Name Sandius pitcht their Tabernacles the one stands firm tho' for 1600 Years the Rain descended Flouds came and the Wind blew on it the other tho' like the Walls of Jerusalem it hath been often attempted to be fastned hath still been blown down and may the Fall of it be still great P. 41. c. 2. Our Doctor says If the Relation between the written Word and rational Consequence be so remote as none but a skilful Herald can derive its Pedigree then is a good Christian no more obliged to believe such an Inference than is every good Subject to be a good Herald As if the Ignorant were no ways obliged to follow the Directions of the wise and good Men or as if Subjects were not bound to obey those Laws whereof they cannot ken those Reasons which the wise and consulting Legislators on good Reasons have established for their Security What tho' the Papists do most absurdly infer from Christ's Command to St. Peter to feed his Lambs that all those Popes which pretend to be his Successors are thereby commissioned to Rule and Govern all Nations and Persons in all Ages Cannot so enquiring a Person as the Doctor or one that is more or one that is less rational from such Scriptural premises as God was made Flesh Christ is God over all equal and one with his Father with undeniable Reason infer as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath done That he is the Eternal Son of God But such an Inference is so contrary to the Socinian's Reason that it is equally rejected with contempt and derision as Popish Impositions and by the Doctor numbred among them But Bernardus non videt omnia He undertakes therefore to bless the World with such a description of them that it shall be as easie to know them without pains or art as it was for the meanest Beggar in the street to understand whom King Ahasuerus would Honour when he caused Mordecai in Royal Manner to be publickly honoured and by Proclamation enjoyned the People to bow the Knee as he past by them The Qualifications for Matter of Faith he says must be these 1. It must be easie to be understood by the meanest capacity and therefore he rejects any thing that is called a Mystery though God manifested in the Flesh be so called by the Apostle yea though the same Mystery be implied in that very Scripture which he quotes to prove his assertion viz. Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus i. e. that Jesus is the Lord which no man can say but by the Holy Ghost i. e. not by a natural Faith but by a supernatural Revelation such as our Saviour says Flesh and blood hath not revealed And it is observable that though in the Title of this Chapter he mentioneth the Word as well as the Matter to be believed yet he makes no mention of the Word by which the Person of our Saviour is generally understood so that Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ the Foundation of our Faith is excluded from being the Object of our belief for he writes the WORD in a larger Character which might induce the Reader to believe that he meant as St. John 1.1 The Son of God which is the adequate Object of Christian Faith but speaks nothing of him in all that Chapter 2ly He says It must be an express Word of God This no Protestant denieth but they do generally urge it against the Papists who teach as necessary Articles of Faith the Commandments of Men And may we not conclude by this Position that they who oppugne such a Fundamental to which Eternal Life is promised may come short of Salvation Christ saith He that believes and is baptized this is but one entire proposition as our Author observes that it is not only he that believes but he that believes and is baptized and Salvation cannot belong to them that put asunder what Christ hath joyned as the Socinians do in the Case of Baptism which they call only a Rite and Ceremony 3ly He says It must be expresly honoured with
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
conceived of them when he thought to present his Naked Gospel to them as if they would have faln in love with its Nakedness And the truth is they saw so many shameful and scandalous Pamphlets demanding Alterations in our Constitutions and Doctrines and a Toleration of Latitudinarian Principles that though they were willing to make some moderate Concessions yet when they perceived there would be no end of demanding such Alterations as they could not consent to they thought it fit to maintain their ground and not give way to unreasonable Propoposals such as these which the Doctor now makes for a Toleration of the Socinian Heresie As for his Charity to the Oxford Convocations the Reflections made on them in his Vindication which hath been already considered do discover that his Charity begins and ends at home and is confined only to Men of his own Perswasion I think I do not conjecture amiss if I say that he hath the same enlarged Charity for us as Smalcius had who concludes his Book De Divinitate Christi thus I doubt not to affirm confidently That none of those who believe Jesus Christ to be God of himself and to have Divine Power can by any means have certain hope of Eternal Life by vertue of his Opinion concerning Christ. And such is the Charity of this Author to all that profess Christ to be their Saviour and say Thou art the King of Gory O Christ Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father If this were the Doctor 's design in writing his Naked Gospel I shall conform to the Apostle who enjoyns That if an Angel from Heaven should teach what is so opposite to the Gospel which the Church in all Ages hath received and believed he deserves an Anathema Thus at last we are like to see a thorough Reformation of the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Saviour even such as we saw of the once Flourishing Church of England under the Government of the most Religious King and Martyr Charles the First It was reformed first by a Presbyterian Parliament which took away her Bishops and Liturgy then by an Independent Army that devoured her Lands and Revenues then by an Inspired General which brought in a Toleration of all sorts of Enthusiasts and after sundry Revolutions by a Naked Rump which if God alone had not prevented it would have left us all in Confusion Thus the Gospel which spread so far and wide under the Ministry of our Saviour and his Apostles was first reformed by a Juncture of Gnosticks Nicolaitans and Ebionites who mixt the Jewish Opinions and Observations with the pure Ordinances of the Gospel and would equal Moses with Christ then by the Samosatenians and Arians who robbed him of that which he thought no Robbery to assume to himself i. e. to be equal with God Then by Mahomet that great Impostor who preferred himself above our Saviour drawing all Sects into a Body under himself And now after various Revolutions by the Naked Gospel which proclaims our Saviour a meer Man as Moses and other Messengers of God were to whom therefore some already do and the rest of the Socinians ought by their Principles to deny any Religious Worship which by their own Confession is due to God only and to no Creature whatsoever And who can foresee with what Viperous Monsters the Naked Gospel is now pregnant which begin to eat through the Bowels of that Church wherein they have been nourished and proclaim Liberty to all sort of Heresies and Blasphemies against the Son of God and the Spirit of Grace as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10.28 Trampling under foot the Son of God and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace When one Pamphlet proclaims the Holy Ghost Dethron'd another The Triple God Buried and the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Popish Antichristian Diabolical Doctrine these dreadful Alarms from the Bottomless Pit should awaken all good Christians unanimously to Invoke the Ever Blessed Trinity to arise and plead its own Cause against such as daily Blaspheme them The loud Blasphemies of these Philistines against not only the Israel of God but the God of Israel hath called me forth to bid Defiance to this Goliah though armed only with a Stone and a Sling not doubting but there are many Worthies in our Israel who will appear and do wonderful things All that I intended was to discover where this Adversary lay hid under the usual Disguise of the Old Serpent that mostly appears as an Angel of Light that he may with less suspicion effect his Works of Darkness and I doubt not but the Church of Christ hath still such good Angels ministring to her before whom such Angels of Satan shall flee and fall as Lightning The Rabbies say That on the Stone wherewith David slew Goliah the Characters of the Messiah were engraven I shall sling a Stone or two in the Name of the Messiah our Blessed Saviour against those Philistines that have blasphemed that Name and commit the success of them to the All-disposing Providence of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost The first Argument that I shall urge is the Harmony of the Old and New Testament which speaks of the Deity of the Messias and apply it to our Saviour The second is drawn from the Doctrine and Faith of such eminent Fathers and Martyrs as suffered for that Faith The third from those Judgments of God executed on those who in their several Ages openly opposed that Faith which may serve as Examples to deter others from tempting Christ lest they be destroyed as those were of whom the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 10.9 From which Premises we may rightly infer an Equality of Nature and Power in the Father and the Son and conclude the same Honour and Worship due to both When Arcadius an Arian Emperor assumed his Son to a Partnership in the Empire the good Bishop St. Ambrose as I remember addressing himself to Arcadius humbled himself with all due Obeysance but took no notice of his Son Honorius at which the Emperor manifesting his displeasure the good Bishop took occasion to tell him That if he were offended at the disrespect shewn to his Son he might consider that the God of Heaven might be more justly displeased with them that neglected to honour his Son which I leave you to apply Some Socinians deny our Saviour any Worship and others grant him only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an inferior Honor as the Papists do their Saints not that Divine Worship which properly belongs to the Deity It is generally agreed by the Socinians to make the Holy Sripture Judge of this great Controversy concerning the Godhead of our Saviour but they would have Reason to be Judge of the sence of the Scripture and to this we would appeal if they would not seek little Evasions from Particles and Criticisms of their own inventions against the plain Letter of the Scripture for Smaltsius one of their best Champions says Ludum jocum è
Scripturis facere pronunciant qui absque necessitate a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discedunt They do but make sport of the Scripture Joh. 1. Col. 1.16 Heb. 1. that depart from the Letter of it when therefore the Scriptures do declare our Blessed Saviour to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible Which must be understood not of the new Creation only as the Socinians affirm to evade the Testimony of St. John ch 1. but of the whole Creation for the Angels which kept their purity and station needed not a new Creation when he is declared to be God over all blessed for ever 1 Joh. 5.20 when he is called the true God and Col. 2.9 In whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily that is really and fully That Christ says of himsef Joh. 8.58 Joh. 17.5 1 Tim. Acts 20 2◠1 Joh. 3.16 Before Abraham was I am That he speaks of the Glory which he had with the Father before the World was That God was manifested in the flesh That God purchased the Church with his own blood And hereby we perceive the Love of God because he laid down his Life for us and we are still looking for the appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And being exegetical the words the Great God shewing his Essence and that of our Saviour his Office That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father And to omit many others he that Christ says of himself I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last which none but God could say What is it but to Play with the Scriptures after all these express significations of his Eternal Deity to deny it And because the best Interpretation of the Scripture is to be found in the Harmony and Agreement or the Analogy of the Old and New Testament the best Confutation of the Socinian and consequently the best Confirmation of the received Opinion of the Eternal Deity of the Son of God may be demonstrated from those places in the Old Testament which speaking of our Saviour as the Messias and attributing to him the very Essence Names and Properties of the Supreme God are in the New Testament appropriated to our Blessed Saviour who therefore in divers places appeals to the Prophesies that went before concerning him in the Law of Moses in the Psalms and Prophets to them we will appeal and search the Scripture because they testify of him At the Transfiguration of our Saviour Matth. 17. it is said There appeared together with Peter James and John Moses and Elias Ut lex Prophetae cum Evangelio congruentes sempeternum Dei filium quem annunciaverant revelarent That the Law and the Prophets conspiring with Christ and his Evangelists might declare the Eternal Son of God whom they had foretold and were to preach to the World See St. Ambrose ad Gratian. 59. and St. Aug. ad Catechum c. 6. This the Author of the Naked Gospel might have observed from his own Quotation of Justin Martyr's words to Triphon the Jew P. 31. I shall not prove saith Just Mar. that Christ is God otherwise than by proving that this is the Christ and that it was foretold that he should be such The same course doth our Country-man Bradwardine take speaking of the Trinity c. p. 29. he confidently affirms That there is not one substantial Article of the Christian Faith which God had not solemnly foretold and revealed by his Prophets and that in so plain a manner that if any Philosopher as a Lover and Enquirer after Truth should duly consider what is written in the Old Testament he must become a Christian As he observes many of the Fathers who were such Philosophers were perswaded to be Such were Justine Martyr Clemens Alex. Tertull. Origen and many others who from the Schools of Plato and some Traditions which he had received from the ancient Jews were prepared upon reading of the Old Testament to imbrace the Doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles because they agreed with the Gospel preached by our Saviour Hornbeck in his Sum of Controversies tells us That the Disciples of Mahomet do confess that if they believed St. Paul 's Epistles to be Canonical as we do they must believe the Divinity of Christ Therefore in their Disputes with Christians concerning the Deity of Christ they decline the Authority of St. Paul's Epistles saying They were adulterated by the Christians That Testimony which Pliny gives to Trajan concerning the Christians that they did carmen dicere Christo tanquam Deo sing Praises to Christ as their God coming from an Heathen is the more firm and it cannot be denied The Christians who suffered under the Heathen Persecutors suffered for their belief of the Eternal Deity of our Saviour for their demand of them was Nega Deum incende Testamentum Deny your God burn your Testaments which implys that they believed that Christ was God and that their Testaments bore witness to the same Yet their answer was Christianus sum Christum verum Deum agnosco adoro I am a Christian I acknowledge and worship Christ as the true God See the Tripartite History of the Persecution by the Vandals And now I shall compare those Testimonies in the Old and New Testament which do prove that our Saviour was the Eternal Son of God and only premise that if any one of those Scriptures which speak of the Eternal God in the Old Testament be rightly applied to our Saviour in the New that then he is that Eternal God To this therefore I apply myself desiring the Reader to bear in mind that whatever from the Old Testament is in the New Testament accommodated to Christ by himself or his Apostles is as true and to be believed as much as any other part of the Gospel The first Scripture that I shall compare is that of Moses Exod. 9.1 and Exod. 20.1 with Heb. 11.25 26. from which places it is thus argued He to whom the People of Israel were a peculiar People whom by the hands of Moses he brought out of Aegypt for whose sake Moses chose to suffer affliction with them rather than to enjoy the Crown of Pharoah He was the God of Israel but our Saviour Christ was he whose peculiar People they were therefore c. This is applyed to Christ Heb. 11.24 By Faith Moses refused to be called the Son of Pharoah's Daughter and chose rather to suffer affliction with the People of God than to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a season esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures of Aegypt Here the affliction of the People of God is called the reproach of Christ his therefore was that People and them he brought out of Aegypt and therefore he is that God The Apostle St. Jude v. 5. speaks to this purpose That the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the vulgar Latine is rendred Jesus having saved the people out of Aegypt afterward destroyed
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
more c. 11. speaking of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ he says That as Nature teacheth that he that is born of Man is Man so it teacheth that he that is born of God is God Theognostus of Alexandria as Athanasius quotes him taught the same Doctrine That the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father as is Beams from the Sun and as the Sun is not lessened by the effusion of its Beams so neither is the Substance of the Father diminished by begetting the Son the Image of himself Dionisius Romanus wrote an Epistle against the Sabellians wherein he says It is necessary that the Word of God be united to the God of all and that the holy Spirit remains in God and so the holy Trinity doth unite in One as in a certain Head viz. the Omnipotent God of the Universe And he confutes those who hold the Son of God to be made as other Creatures as being contrary to the Scripture Lastly That the Trinity is not to be divided into three Gods nor the Dignity of it to be lessened by the name of a Creature but we are to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his Son and in the Holy Spirit And that the Son is united to the Father he proves from the words of our Saviour I and the Father are one for thus the Divine Trinity and the preaching of that Holy Monarchy is preserved Dionisius of Alexandria whom the Arians boasted to be of their Party wrote against them in his own defence an Epistle which he calls a Resutation wherein he declares That he never was of the Opinion of Arius but that he alway thought our Lord to be the Word and Wisdom undivided from the Father For saith he under the name of the Father I imply that he hath a Son and when I mention the Son I understand also that he hath a Father and so I joyn them together for from whom should the Son come but from the Father But the Arians will not understand that the Son cannot be separated from the Father the names implying a communion between them and the Holy Ghost is in both and cannot be separated from him that sends him How then can you suspect me who use those Names to have thought that they may be divided or separated wherefore you accuse me falsly as if I had denied that Christ is Consubstantial with God Thus I said that the Plant proceeds from the Seed or Root and is another thing from that from whence it proceeds yet is it of the same nature with that whence it proceeds the River which flows from the Fountain hath another name for we do not call the River the Fountain nor the Fountain the River yet both do exist and the Fountain is as a Father but the River is Water flowing from the Fountain Greg. Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesaria hath left us this Confession of his Faith recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 28. There is one God the Father of the Living Word the Subsisting Wisdom the Eternal Power and Character the perfect Father of him that is perfect the Father of the only Begotten There is one Lord alone from him that is alone God of God the Character and Image of the Deity the efficacious Word the Wisdom comprehending the constitution of all things and the effective Power of all things the true Son of the true Father invisible of him that is invisible incorruptible from him that is incorruptible immortal and eternal And there is one Holy Spirit that hath its existence of God who by the Son hath appeared unto Men the perfect Image of the perfect Son the Life and Cause of the Living the Holy Fountain Sanctity and Giver of Sanctification in whom God the Father is manifest who is above all and in all and God the Son which is in all The perfect Trinity which is not divided nor separated in Glory Eternity Kingdom and Power so that there is nothing in the Trinity that is created or servile nothing added or superinducted which was not before The Son was never wanting to the Father nor the Spirit to the Son but the Trinity alway remained the same immutable and invariable In the Life-time of this Greg. Thaumaturgus a Synod of Bishops met at Antioch to Censure the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus who denied the Deity of Christ These Bishops denounced an Anathema against him having first admonished him of his Heresie and in that Epistle they say That they declare the Faith which they received from the beginning and alway held in the Catholick Church from the Apostles to that day even from those that had seen with their eyes and were made Ministers of the Word and which was preached in the Law and Prophets and in the New Testament And the Faith concerning Christ they say is this That he is the Word the Wisdom and Power of God that was before all Ages God the Son of God in substance and subsistance Pierius a Presbyter of Alexandria was of the same Opinion as Photius relates Cod. 119. That the Father and the Son were of one Substance and Equality St. Lucian a Presbyter of Antioch published the same Faith which is to be seen in Socrates l. 2. c. 10. We believe in one God the Father Almighty Maker of all things and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son by whom all things were made begotten of the Father before all Ages God of God Whole of Whole Sole of Sole Perfect of Perfect King of King Lord of Lord the Living Word Wisdom Life the true Light Way and Truth the Resurrection Pastor and Gate not obnoxious to Change or Alteration every way the express Image of the Father's Deity Substance Power Counsel and Glory the first Begotten of every Creature who was with God in the beginning God the Word as is said in the Scripture who in the last times came down from Heaven and was born of a Virgin according to the Scripture and in the Holy Ghost which is given to Believers to comfort sanctifie and consummate them as our Lord Christ commanded his Disciples go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are three in Person but agree in One. Arnobius gives the like Testimony That Christ without any Instrument Help or Rule but by the power of his own Nature made all things and as it was worthy of God nothing that was hurtful but all beneficial and this is the property of the true God to deny his bounty to none Lastly Lactantius whom the Arians claim to be of their Opinion says thus When we say God the Father and God the Son we do not speak of what is diverse or separated because neither the Father can be so called without the Son nor the Son be begotten without the Father seeing therefore the Father makes the Son and the Son makes him a Father there is in both one Mind one Spirit and
the promise of Eternal Life to the Believer and therefore he says p. 42. Col. 2. Whoever ascribes it to any other Doctrine however true however revealed makes himself equal to Christ in Authority and superiour in Faithfulness If then that Scripture of our Saviour This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 20.31 And 1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 St. Augustine reads the Text thus To know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God and so doth St. Chrysostom Now if I say Eternal Life be appropriate to this knowledge that Christ is the true God then it is a fundamental Article of Faith P. 43. There can be no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts concerning Matters of Faith saith the Doctor How then comes it to pass that there are so many Controversies concerning Matters of Faith and that each Party denies Salvation to their Adversaries that differ from them His appeal to natural Faith will never be able to determine the Controversies that are yet undecided concerning such Fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to Salvation Socinus de Adoratione Christi says Bonas rationes rectas ex verbo dei consecutiones in sacris disputationibus aspernare nec admittere velle hominis est suae causae parum fidentis He says 3. We need not ought not to be uncharitable to any who differ from us in other Doctrines to the belief whereof the Promise is not appropriate But is Eternal Life any where promised to those that believe that Jesus Christ was only a Creature and a meer Man Can we hope for Salvation without satisfaction to the Divine Justice or can we make satisfaction Is it not good Divinity to say there is no Salvation but in the Name and through the Merits of Jesus Christ who died for our Sins and rose again for our Justification I have shewn you how the Doctor would interpret this latter Scripture Rom. 4. ult Commodius interpretationis as they call them there but if their little Criticisms and false Punctations should be admitted the Scriptures would indeed be made as he says A Nose of Wax witness their interpretation of John 8.58 Before Abraham was I am i. e. say they Before Abraham was made the Father of the Faithful and of many Nations that were converted by the preaching of the Gospel I am viz. the Light of the World So Eniedinus renders the Confession of St. Thomas as an Exclamation directed to God the Father O my Lord and my God as saith he we are wont to do when we behold any strange sight And Christ's words to the Thief Luke 23.43 are thus pointed I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise viz. When I shall come to Judgement Thus Francis David on the words of St. Stephen Act. 7.59 makes this Comment O God the Father who art the Lord of Jesus receive my Soul In this ch p. 44. c. 2. the Doctor says that the Remission which the prophets promised reached only to temporal punishments but that by Christ to eternal life How then can a natural Faith secure us of Life eternal when that Faith though greatly improved by the Prophets could not do it Ch. 11. in this Chapter he revives and pleads for another Socinian Tenet for the Resurrection not of the same but another Body He propounds the Question thus Whether any Promise doth necessarily import a restitution of the same numerical Matter and undertakes to prove That it is more honourable to God and more serviceable to the Design of the Gospel to believe the contrary But First This is contrary to the Grammatical Signification of the Word and to the Scripture by him quoted viz. That God gives to every seed his own Body And Ruffinus mentions the word Hujus the Resurrection of this Body which though it shall have a kind of Transfiguration by substraction of the old earthly Qualities and the addition of such as are new and heavenly yet the subject shall continue the same which St. Paul means 1 Cor. 15.53 This corruptible shall put on incorruption that as we have born the image of the earthly we may bear the image of the heavenly and as Job says With these eyes see God Job 19.25 And the Justice of God requires this that as the Faithful have born the Marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in their Bodies wherein they were Partakers of the Sufferings of Christ and were consecrated to him as the Temples of the Holy Ghost may partake of the Reward and Crown of Glory in the same Bodies What he says of our being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves as well that we shall have no Bodies as that we shall not have the same The change that shall be made in our vile Bodies doth not alter the form of our Bodies no more than it doth the Body of Christ which though it be now a glorious Body yet is still the same numerical Body and to call that a Load of Carion which the Apostle calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost is not becoming a Christian Doctor As we believe therefore that the same Body our Saviour which suffered is now glorified and that the same Bodies that remain to the last day shall be taken up to meet the Lord in the Air shall be the same Bodies that shall be ever with the Lord. And as we believe that Christ arose from the Grave in the same Body wherein he died so we believe that he carried the same into the heavenly Sanctuary and shall come at last in the same Body to judge both the Quick and Dead that all Eyes may look on their Crucified Saviour and unless it shall be the same Body it cannot properly be called a Resurrection And no doubt but our Resurrection shall be conform with that of Christ's as the Apostle intimates Rom. 8.11 He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies To this purpose St. Augustine Epl. 57. That as Christ glorified his own Body but destroyed not its nature so will he give Glory to our Bodies but not take away the nature of them Nor indeed do other qualities any more alter the nature of our Bodies than of our Souls which for substance shall be the same But lastly if this Enquiry be a matter of Curiosity not of Faith why doth he oppose the Doctrine so long received in the Church to bring in a Socinian Tenet And now p. 50. c. 1. he gives us the Socinian Scheme of the Naked Gospel such as Socinus Crellius Sclichtingius Smalcius and the whole Tribe have fancied and published to the World before him That its business was to reduce the Jews from their Bondage under the Law of Moses and the Gentiles from their worse bondage under the Worship of Devils to the