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
wicked Mâ—n were risen up in his Diocess teaching such a Defection as may be rightly called A Fore-running of Antichrist I could wish says he this mischief might have been confined among the Apostates but seeing Eusebius of Nicomedia undertakes their Patronage and hath written Letters to recommend them and their Heresie I could not forbear to forewarn you of these Apostates and their Opinions and that you attend not to the Writings of Eusebius The Names of those that have forsaken the Church Arius Achillas Aithales Carpones another Arius Sarmates Euzoius Lucius Julianus Menas Hellodius Gaius and with these Secundus and Theanas who were formerly called Bishops That which they rashly publish is this God was not alway a Father the Word of God was not alway but had its beginning of nothing for God which is created him that was not out of that which was not and so the Son they say is a Creature not like his Father in Substance nor the True Word of God nor his True Wisdom but one of his Works and Creatures but abusively so called being made by the Word and Wisdom which is in God that made him and all things That the Son knows not the Father nor can perfectly know him nor doth he know his own Substance what it is but was made as an Instrument by which God would create us nor had he been made unless God would have made us by him To them that ask whether the Word of God could be changed as the Devil was they answer Yea that he is of a mutable Nature because he was created Arius with great impudence affirming these Things We together with almost an hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia did anathematize him and his Adherents but Eusebius hath received them that he may joyn Impiety to Piety Falshood to Truth but they shall not prevail for Truth will overcome for whoever heretofore heard such things or now hearing them doth not stop his Ears who hearing St. John say In the beginning was the Word will not condemn these Mens sayings There was a time when he was not c. These Letters had various effects on a great many and not much to the advantage of Alexander for Arius and his Party were very diligent in writing on the contrary behalf Eusebius also Bishop of Nicomedia heartily espoused his Cause partly out of a private grudge between him and Bishop Alexander and partly through his own Opinion which agreed with those of Arius and the Emperour being then at Nicomedia with whom he was in favour and by this opportunity he had great influence on the neighbouring Bishops to whom he wrote divers Letters on the behalf of Arius he wrote also to Alexander himself admonishing him to receive Arius again into his Communion and by these means the Divisions were so great that not only the Bishops but the People also ran into Parties and the Meletians also joyned with Arius so that they wrote to Alexander to recall the Excommunication against him pleading that his Opinions were right for Arius did so palliate his Heresie as that to the unwary and more ignorant sort both of Clergy and People it seemed nothing different from the Orthodox Doctrine The Emperor also wrote to a contrary purpose to the Church of Alexandria Socrates p 30. That all things concerning the Controversies that were moved had been acurately discussed and examined by the Council But O! what great and grievous Blasphemies some did declare against our Saviour and our Hope of Eternal Life producing things contrary to the Scripture inspired from above and to the Faith yet professing their belief of them whereas therefore more than 300 Bishops which were to be admired for their modesty and diligence conformed by their unanimous consent that which according to the Rule of the Divine Law is the only Faith Arius only was found who overcome by diabolical fraud and design did first sow this mischievous Evil among you and others but let us embrace the Opinion which Almighty God hath delivered and return to our Brethren from whose Fellowship that impudent Minister of the Devil hath separated them for that which hath been decreed by more than 300 Bishops is to be esteemed as the Divine Sentence seeing that the Holy Ghost residing in their Minds hath revealed his Divine Will unto them He assured them also That the Definitions of the Council were not made without diligent examination Wherefore in another Epistle to the Bishops and People mentioned by Socrates p. 32. of the Edition by Valesius he says That the Arians following evil and malitious Men deserved to suffer the same infamous punishment with them and as Porphyry who wrote against the Christian Religion had his Books destroyed and himself branded to Posterity so it is my Command That Arius and his Followers shall be call'd Porphyrians and that if any Book written by Arius be found that it be consumed by Fire that no remembrance of him may remain and that such as conceal his Books shall suffer Death These were the Emperour's second thoughts It hapned that Constantia the Emperour's Sister had entertained an Arian Presbyter who often talkt of Arius complaining to her how much he was wronged by the Council at Nice but she durst not commend his Case to the Emperour till being sick and often visited by the Emperour she commended this Presbyter to the Emperour as a devout and faithful Person who having got into the Emperour's favour he told him as he had done his Sister of the hard measure Arius had from the Council whom he affirmed to be of the same Judgment with them and that if he might be admitted to the Emperour's presence he would declare his consent to their Decrees The Emperour wondered to hear this and said That if Arius would subscribe those Decrees he would not only admit him to his presence but send him home to Alexandria with Honour and wrote to him to that purpose See the Letter Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 25. wondering that he had not declared sooner seeing as the Historian says the Emperour had often exhorted him to it but being come to Constantinople he with Euzoius and some others presented the Emperour an Account of their Faith in Writing which was this To believe in One God the Father Almighty and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son who was made by him before all Ages God the Word by whom all things in Heaven and Earth were made who came down and was incarnate who suffered and rose again and ascended and shall come to judge the Quick and Dead and in the Holy Ghost the Resurrection of the Flesh and the Life to come in One Catholick Church of God from one end of the World to the other this we believe as God shall judge us now and in the World to come On this Confession the Emperour ordered his Return to Alexandria whether he went and revived the Divisions among the People framing new Accusations against Alexander the Emperour therefore
the Jews only on whom they were imposed neither were they the Worship of God but an Introduction thereunto The true Worship of God which I call my Religion is the Decalogue which is the Eternal and Immutable Will of God which I call mine because it is given me by God not by a Voice from Heaven but ingrafted in my mind from the Creation and because this Ingraven Decalogue is much obscured by the Corruption of Humane Nature and wicked Customs I add a Vocal Decalogue to illustrate it which Vocal Decalogue doth therefore belong to me and to all Men because it agrees with the Ingraven Decalogue and is the same with it This is my Opinion concerning the Messias or the King promised and this is the Religion which I ingenuously profess to you Martyne Seidelius This is another Professor of Natural Religion Servetius was a Spaniard of Tarracon where he profest Physick and joyning the Study of Divinity he fell into the Error of the Antitrinitarians his Blasphemous Writings and Discourses whereby he laboured to seduce others caused him to leave his Country from whence he after he had wandred up and down came and setled at Geneva and there published his Blasphemous Heresies Beza says That he called the Trinity the Three Headed Cerberus Epist 1. And in the seven Books which he wrote concerning the Errors of the Trinity speaking of the Eternal Generation of the Son l. 1. he says That then the Father ought to have a Spiritual Wife or was an Harmophrodite both Father and Mother for the reason of the word permits not that any should be called a Father without a Mother His other Errors were That the Substance of God was mutable and was a part of the Universe He denied the Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost he affirmed the Mortality of the Soul and that Moses was a ridiculous Impostor and the Church of Israel a Heard of Swine He mentioned saith Calvin the Trinity to be a Devilish Phantasm and Satanical Illusion above and hundred times For these reasons he was imprisoned by the Magistrates of Geneva and that they might proceed judiciavily against him they consulted with the Helvetian Churches who all approved of their intended Proceedings and sentenced him to be Burnt which Sentence was accordingly executed on him in Geneva 1553. Bulling Melach and other great Divines approving of it while he was in Prison many Divines besides Calvin Farel perswaded him to Recant his Errors which he obstinately refused and after Sentence was past he grew more sullen refusing Converse and to joyn in Prayers with others And when he was to be executed called on the People in the Spanish mode Miserere but not at all on God or our Saviour Christ yet this Man as wicked as he was is accounted a Martyr Both living and dead was in great repute and esteem among the Socinians Theophilus Nicolai calls him his Brother and Servant of the Messiah What did not Michael Servetus that learned Man and stout Defender of the Faith suffer unjustly Ostorodus made an Apology for him so did Voidovius And Socinus himself says That he thought much more highly of Christ than the Mahometans did and in some things wrote against them And when he was brought to the Fire he would not acknowledge the Eternal Son of God but the Son of the Eternal God for which they esteemed him a Martyr This sort of Serpents have had their lurking Holes in this Nation and have attempted to poyson the People but hitherto have been prevented as soon as they began to peep abroad I know not what they might have done had they found a Man of such Learning and Confidence as our Author In the Reign of Queen Mary to the great Grief and Scandal of the Protestant Martyrs there were some that suffered for denying the Godhead of Christ in the Year 1579 one Hamant was burnt in Norwich for denying the Deity of Christ and in the Year 1588 one Kett suffered for the same Blasphemy In King James the First his Reign one Legate suffered for the same Heresie Sandius observes p. 430. that Queen Elizabeth complained with grief That such Monsters as the Arians were found in her Kingdom whereof he gives an account that some were executed in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James the First In the Year 1579 there was printed at London an Arian Book as Sandius p. 430. called The Articles of the Family of Love and how deservedly that Family was subverted for their debauched and extravagant Practices is sufficiently known In the late Troubles when all Sects and Heresies were permitted this Gangreen began to spread their attempts were on the weaker sort of People Anabaptists and Quakers many of whom were seduced by some such Leaders as Mr. Beedle and Pen And how far the Infection spread the Reader may see in Pagit's Hiresiology and in Edwards Gangrena where there is so much Filth as makes me forbear to rake it up The Socinians have often boasted that they could vie Authorities from the Fathers of the First three hundred Years who have said more as they falsly boast against the Trinity and the Eternal Essence and Consubstantiality of the Son then those which have asserted it but as yet they have not attempted it and Mr. Bull 's Collection hath wholly discouraged that Attempt it is true that some of those Ancients spake warily of those and other Mysteries and forbore to speak their own sence or discover the nature of them as it is evident they did industriously conceal the manner of administring the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper from not only the Jews and Heathens but the Catechumens also when therefore the publick Prayers were ended 〈◊〉 M 〈…〉 a est the Deacon pronounced a Departure to such as were not the Fideles who were not admitted to the Participation of the Eucharist which practice is generally observed in the Churches of Christ to this day This was called Disciplina Arcani and it was exercised in restraining all but the Fideles from Participation of the Eucharist and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity also as some suppose This Practice was grounded on the Words of our Saviour who also would not reveal his Deity to all sorts of Persons nor some of the Mysteries of the Gospel which he proposed in dark Parables only for a certain time the People being not able to bear them the words are Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs and cast not your pearls before swine which many of the Ancients understood of not exposing the more sacred Mysteries of the Gospel to such as had not received the more common Doctrines and were not admitted to the number of the Faithful to this purpose are quoted Tertullian Origine Cyprian Athanasius Gregory Nyssene and Nazianzen Basil Heirom Epiphanius both the Cirils Chrysostome Ambrose and Augustine I confess the Church of Rome would make advantage of this Discipline but learned Men have bard them I only
granted and all sort of Heresies were impunely permitted and Orthodox Doctrines discountenanced there are so few persons infected with Heresie and so many learned persons left us to vindicate the Truths of the Gospel yet are there some Thousands infected with Anabaptism and Quakerism among whom the Pelagian and Socinian Doctrines have got the Ascendent They talked formerly of being Godded with God and Christed with Christ and now they deny the Godhead of Christ and Man it with Man what number of such Hereticks are now among us the Author of the NAKED GOSPEL may know better than others doubtless he presumes of a large Muster otherwise he would not appear as a Leader to head them but that he should appear under the Notion of a Son of the Church of England is the greatest Affront that could be done it for as Plutarch says he had rather Men should say there was never such a Man as Plutarch than that they should say he was a Vicious Person So is it a less reproach for the Papists to say there never was such a Church as the Church of England than to say it is a Church professing Pelagian and Socinian Doctrines The Fathers and Sons of our Church have not and by the Grace of God will not be wanting in their Duty to Assert her Doctrines and to Silence all her Adversaries The University of Oxford have manifested their Abhorrence of it in Condemning the Book to the Fire And the Right Reverend the Bishop of Exeter Visitor of that Colledge whereof the Author was Rector hath as the Statutes of the Colledge directed him in Case of Heresie very seasonably repremanded him whereby it is hoped the Gangreen of his Heresies will be mortified and cut off from infecting the Members of that Famous Colledge Nor do I doubt but all that have any Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical will shew the like Detestation of that Damnable Heresie that denieth the Lord that bought them The Ancient Fathers were very severe against such Ignatius mentioning that passage in Jer. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man saith that they are under the Curse that affirm Christ to be a meer man Origen on Job l. 1. c. 4. Whatever men shall do without Faith in the Holy Trinity they do in vain and shall have no reward Fulgentius de fide p. 9. saith he cannot be a Christian that shall not confess the Lord Christ to be his God The Fathers have said as much concerning the Arians that they were Antichristians rather than Christians Yea they say the like of Arius as of Julian That they were both guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and if to the rest of our National Sins we should add this to suffer the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to be thus publickly derided and made the Subject of profane Pamphlets that the Writers should confidently own them and falsely profess themselves Sons of the Church of England that there should be a Secret Press still in Labour to be delivered of such Monsters that there should be a Club to Father them and such Hectors to defend and support them and so many to applaud them and such Books as were long since written in Latin are taught to speak English and French and our English Books in requital are taught to speak Latin and French Arrianism is one of the great Provocations for which the Lord's hand is not withdrawn but is still stretched out to be avenged on us Luther on his Death bed was wont to exhort those who came to visit him Oremus pro Domino nostro ejus Evangelio Let us pray for our Lord and for his Gospel The Gospel was then reviving and gaining its liberty it is now imprisoned in all Countries where Popery doth prevail and it is like to be stript Naked at home if some charitable Hand doth not seasonably prevent it to which that Doom which our Saviour hath denounced Mat. 25.43 Go ye cursed for I was naked and ye cloathed me not should excite every good Christian otherwise we may justly fear that for all the Affronts and Indignities which the Prophane on the one hand and the Hereticks and Blasphemers on the other hand between whom our blessed Saviour is crucified afresh and put to open shame he deal with us as he did with the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy Candlestick except thou repent And the great haste which so many do make to banish the true knowledge of God out of the Land is a fearful Prognostick that our Saviour will come quickly to be avenged on such a People My present Undertaking is only to do the Office of a Watch-man or Sentinel to discover the approach of an Adversary and to sound an Alarme to such as are better furnished with Arms and Abilities to vanquish them of which by the Blessing of God our Church is provided with many thousands who I doubt not will fight it out Usque ad Triarios If I have for the sake of my Country-men collected a few Arguments against the Socinian Tenets it is what the Discourse of the Author led me to my intent was to discover the dangerous Design of the Naked Gospel which the Author pretends was for the enlarging of Charity and for condemning of Impositions in Matters of Faith under which Notion he industriously condemns those Doctrines of the Nicene Fathers and of Athanasius which have been received in the Church of England not only from them but from the most Primitive Times But the Doctor says We have no firm ground to go upon not from Scripture because the Arrians capt Scripture with the Orthodox nor from Antiquity which they claimed with the same confidence nor from Councils which determined sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other p. 37. c. 1. Yet he grants that the Catholicks have the advantage of long possession and that after Sentence and at last leaves both the Arrian and Athanasian Doctrines on the same level with Roman Impositions equally unworthy of our Faith or Study By this and what I shall further urge from the Naked Gospel it will evidently appear that if the Doctor be of any Religion that names the Name of Christ he must be a Socinian As to the Author's design he pretends it to be 1. For the enlarging of Charity i. e. for a Toleration of his Opinions 2. To prevent Impositions in Matters of Faith to both which I have replyed and shewn that the real design is to ridicule the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Nice and to prefer a Natural Religion above that which is taught by them which he accounts among his unreasonable Impositions as having 1. No footing in Scripture in answer whereto I have shewn the Harmony of the Old and New Testament in Confirmation of those Doctrines 2. Whereas he says they have no Foundation in the Fathers I have produced their Authorities And thirdly as for the Councils Because the Socinians decline
to Charity we have one Lord one Faith one Baptism but such as the Author is the Socinians deny the Lord that bought them destroy the Foundation of Faith in the Godhead and satisfaction of Christ and wholly disannul Baptism and so cut asunder this triple Cord that obligeth Christians to Charity and indeed as they acknowledge not the one Lord so they nullify the one Faith in him and make the one Baptism of no effect and therefore have utterly destroyed Charity The next charge of exposing the Divinity of Christ he says p. 5. hath no other evidence but this That he is sometimes stiled a crucified Vagabond and this he says is but once viz. in the Introduction But was it not said with as little modesty p. 21. c. 2. That he was a Vagabond Galilean which expressions by the Rule of Fortiter calumniare aliquod adherebit will not excuse him by saying he personated an Infidel such playing with Holy Things is much worse than his play at push Pin. P. 6. he protesteth That in his whole life he never spent so much time in reading Socinian Books as put altogether would amount to one whole day By spending so much time I suppose he means he did not lose or mispend it but it was well bestowed or perhaps he made the Arrian Controversy his chief Study which is as contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as the Socinian So Socinus protested he never read Arrius Credat Judaeus I would here remind the Doctor of the excellent Advice of the incomparable King Charles the First mentioned by himself in his Preface I would have you as I hope you are already well grounded and setled in your Religion the best Profession whereof I have ever esteemed that of the Church of England in which you have been Educated c. It is well known that the Doctor was not only educated in the Church of England but to that very time when he wrote his Naked Gospel that is till he was sixty five Years old as he computes his Age he hath lived in the Communion of that Church we may therefore marvel how he was so soon removed from him that called him to the Grace of Christ unto another Gospel as St. Paul expresseth it Gal. 1.6 which would pervert the Gospel of Christ Did he not judiciously make the Doctrine of the Church of England his own as that Blessed King advised Did he not by his own judgment and reason but by his hand only seal to the Bond which Education had written or take it up only on Mens Customs or Traditions as that good King speaks if so he was guilty of great Oscitancy in the matter of Religion on which Salvation depends or if after so long Profession of the Doctrine of the Church he began to entertain some doubts of the truth of it he was guilty of great Levity in so weighty a Matter not to bestow many Years in the Examination of the Errors of that Doctrine which he forsook and imbracing another vastly and dangerously differing from it without bestowing so much as one Day 's reading the Grounds and Reasons of it On supposition therefore that the Doctor hath embraced either the Arrian or Socinian Doctrines he was unaccountably rash there being so many Books written by learned Men of both Parties to leave a Religion which he had so long profest and had time to enquire into and without more than one Days study in a Case of such consequence to fall off to a contrary Opinion This may tempt Men to think it was done in a Pet some may think because he was not removed to a higher Station as he intimates somewhere the Archbishop promised he should in some short time but being not done he thought to remind him of his Promise by Dedicating that Book of a Constant Communicant to his Grace yet after all he was left in that Place where he spent three Pence of his own to every Penny of his Preferment For my part I have a better opinion of the Doctor and that he had long studied and often discoursed with learned Men concerning the Socinian Controversy and that the Naked Gospel was the product of many Years spent in Reading Conference and Meditation on those Points before he came to a Resolution For I have heard of a Doctor of his Age who often discoursed with his Father a Reverend Divine concerning some Arminian Pelagian and Socinian Points and in heat of disputation did tell his Father That it would not be well till we came up to the Socinian Doctrine this was many years since And what means his sitting down when the Athanasian Creed was said but his contempt of it The next Charge is That the Godhead of our Saviour is declared to be an impertinent and dangerous Speculation This he thinks is discharged by the former distinction of the manner of the Generation c. and adds That those Fathers who were the most earnest Assertors of the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity he doth not say of his Eternal Deity were also the most severe Censurers of Curiosity concerning the manner of his Generation And our Author is a Son of those Fathers who granted a Created Deity to our Saviour and most severely censured those that held his Eternal Generation as being guilty of Polytheism which is often intimated by him This is the sum of the Author's Defence I would willingly know of what sort of Divinity it is that he ascribes to our Saviour because I find that the Arrians acknowledge that he is a Created God and the Socinians grant a Divinity but not so much as a Created Deity I see no more granted him as to his Person by the Socinians than by the Turks which acknowledge he was a Divine Man and a true Prophet or Messenger of God This Divinity he learnt of Smalcius as I shall shew hereafter or of Crellius as is already shewn whose words as well as sence he so often repeats as will give great cause to the Reader to conclude that he spent more than one whole Day in reading the Socinian Controversies The general Remarks which I shall make on the Naked Gospel are as follow 1. That whereas the Author pretends the special Design of it is to enlarge Charity yet that Charity is only designed for a Toleration of the Arrian and Socinian Doctrines and he sharply reflects on all such as he perceived to be averse from such his enlarged Charity p. 39. Col. 1. If Bishop Alexander the first Author of the Nicety thought fit to tolerate the Arrians we can ill prentend to Charity if we allow them no title to God's Pardon or his Church's Communion P. 57. of his interpolated Edition he pleads That nothing can be more odious than to persecute as Hereticks and Malefactors all such as should refuse to be imposed on viz. by the Bishops that asserted the Trinity P. 11. of his Vindication he recommends the charitable Heresie of the Latitudinarians under
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
observe that such a Practice was ancient and in some times reasonable Antonius Pagi a Franciscan in his Critical Notes upon Baronius ad Seculum secundum p. 21 c. gives us several Quotations to this purpose St. Augustine on John Tract 96. says That the Sacraments of the Faithful are not exposed to the Catechumens and the Catechumens do not know what the Faithful do receive Chrysostom on Matth. Hom. 27. Those only that are initiated do know what the Faithful receive Origine in his first Book against Celsus shews the Reason as well as the Custom of concealing some Christian Rites he tells him That the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Crucifixion Resurrection and coming to Judgment were known to all but the Jews derided them and that was the cause that other Mysteries were concealed particularly that of the Holy Trinity And concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity St. Chrysostome Hom. 4. on 1 Cor. professeth that he durst not speak of the Form of Baptism and of the Creed in which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is explained I dare not saith he because of those that are not yet initiated who make the Exposition more difficult who compel us either not to speak openly or to discover Secrets to them yet I will speak of them as far as I am permitted under Figures St. Cyril of Jer. Catech. 6. speaking of the Mysteries contained in the Creed says The Church layeth open these Mysteries and Sacraments to those that are initiated but it is not their Custom to expose them to the Gentiles we do not declare to them the Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor do we openly preach them to the Catechumens but in such a secret manner as they that profess the things may understand it and they who understand it not may not be prejudiced There is something to this purpose in Soz. l. 1. c. 20. I thought saith he to have set forth a Copy of the Creed as necessary for the Demonstration of our Faith but when some of my Friends pious Men and well skilled in the knowledge of these things perswaded me that I should keep in silence such things as are fit for Priests only to speak of and for such as are already initiated to hear I approved of their Counsel because it is very probable that some who are not yet initiated may read these Books wherefore I have hid as much as I could those Secrets which ought to be concealed acquainting the Reader with such Decrees of the Council which they ought not to be wholly ignorant of And indeed we find that the Heathen when they heard of the secret Doctrines of the Trinity Sacraments and Prayers of the Primitive Christians did make sport of them and ridicul'd them on their Theatres and publick Plays whereof we have an instance in Lucian's Philopatris or a Dialogue wherein he represents a Christian instructing an Ethnick by whom he ought to swear Thou shalt swear says he by the God that rules on high the great immortal and immutable God by the Son of the Father and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father one in three and three in one conceive this to be Jupiter your God To which the Ethnick answers I cannot apprehend what you say is one three and three one Thus also he scoffs at our Lord's Prayer when the Heathen bids his Catechumen go and say the Prayer beginning Father and end with a Song of many Names i. e. the Doxology Socinus says in his Defence against Eutropius That he never read any thing more strong for the Opinion of the Trinity than this of Lucian he wrote in the time of Trajan St. Hierom speaking of the Translation of the Septuagint says That the Translators did not reveal to Ptolomy the Incarnation of the Son of God lest the Heathen should think they had two Gods Proeme on Gen. Casaubone on Baronius Exerat 16. and Monsieur Morney mention the same Discipline which may be a great reason why so few of those ancient Fathers mentioned the Trinity and those who did spake in such dark Terms as our Author himself hath observed p. 56. c. 2. that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did hide from the Catechumens the Rites of Sacraments So that considering this Discipline which restrained many Ancients from publishing the whole Truth and the diligence of the several Hereticks to alter and expunge what was written against them it is a wonderful Providence that so many Authentick Testimones are preserved The following Collections are mostly from Mr. Bull 's Book where the Reader may see them asserted The Epistle of Barnabas written about the time of the Apostles call Christ the Son of God Lord of the whole World by whom and for whom all things were made i. e. by him as the Efficient and for him as the Final Cause which agreeth with the Apostle Rom. 11.36 and cannot be said of any but God without Blasphemy s 1. c. 2. n. 2. and in c. 5. of that Epistle he says That he who foreknew all things foretold his People that he would take away the Heart of Stone and give them a Heart of Flesh because he was to appear or be made manifest in the Flesh and to dwell in us for our Hearts says he are the holy Temple of the Lord. Hermas another Apostolical Writer in his Book called The Pastor affirms That the Son of God was present with his Father before all Creatures and calls him his Counsellor and that the name of the Son of God is great and infinite that the whole World is sustained by him and thus distinguisheth between the Son of God and the Creatures Similitud 9. And l. 3. Simil. 5. he says The Son of God is not put in a servile condition but in great power for to be put in the form of a Servant and to be a Creature are of one signification This agrees with that distinction of the Apostle Phil. 2. c. 6. between the Form of a Servant and the Form of God Of this Author Petavius says That he was never suspected to have any false Opinion of the Trinity Martialis a Bishop and Martyr and who is said to have been one of the seventy Disciples in his Epistle to the Burdegalenses c. 2. says of our Saviour That as a Man born of the Virgin he could die but as the Son of God he was from the beginning and as God he could not be held under the power of Death And Chap. 4. He being the true God and true Man shall judge all Nations Chap. 10. That the Spirit of God most glorious by Divine Equality did proceed from the Word not begotten not made nor created but the Word was begotten therefore says he do ye not conceive any thing different in the Deity of the Trinity because to you there is one and the same God the Father that created all things and one and the same Lord by whom all things were made his Son Jesus Christ and one and
the same God the Holy Spirit in whom all things subsist and this Deity spoken of in three Persons is one individed God And Chap. 11. When we are freed from this Body we shall be in Heaven with Christ God and Man whom we worshipped here on Earth Polycarp an Apostolical Author in his undoubted Epistle to the Philippians says Thus God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest and Son of God Build you up in the Faith and Truth c. Such an Invocation is proper only to God with whom the Son is joyned And again We are all in the sight of God and the Lord and must all stand before the Tribunal of Christ And in another Fragment of Polycarp's mentioned by Eusebius l. 4. c. 15. we have these words I bless thee in all things and glorifie thee by the Eternal High-Prist Jesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom to thee together with him in the Holy Spirit be glory now and for ever Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and a Martyr was the Disciple of Polycarp he begins his Epistle to the Smyrnians thus I glorifie Jesus Christ God who hath made you so wise And thus he salutes the Ephesians In the good will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God there is one Omnipotent God who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son who is his substantial Word and not by pronunciation but the begotten Essence of the Divine Power Ad Magnes 3. So in the 5th to the Philip. The Lord commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not in one that had three names only nor in three that were Incarnate but in three of the same Dignity for one of them was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but the Son only who was so not in opinion nor in Phantasie but indeed for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us How should not he be God who raised the Dead made the Lame to walk cleansed the Leapers and gave sight to the Blind And to the Philadelphians There is one God the Father unbegotten one Son the only begotten God the Word and Man one Paraclete the Spirit of Truth If any one say there is one God and confess Jesus Christ but conceives him to be a meer Man and not the only Begotten the Word and Wisdom of God but thinks him to consist only of a Body and a Soul this Man is a Serpent as Ebion was who taught error and deceit Epist 6. To those of Smyrna Epist 7. he calls Christ the God that bore flesh And Epist 8. to Polycarp He that was not passible as God suffered for us as he was Man In the 9th to the Antiochians He who acknowledgeth one only God to deny the Deity of Christ he is a Devil and Enemy of all Righteousness And in the Conclusion of that Epistle He who only is unbegotten preserve you both in Body and Soul by him who was born before Ages Epistle 11. ad Ephes The Word was made Flesh the Incorporeal in a Body the Impossible in a Body passible In his Epistle to the Romans Suffer me to be an Imitator of the Passion of Christ my God And in another Epistle to the Ephes There is one Physitian Carnal and Spiritual made and not made God in the Flesh the true Life in Death of God and of Mary Clemens Romanus useth the same distinction of our Saviour according to the Flesh and attributing to him the Splendor of the Magnificence of God preferring him above the Angels And his Expressions do so agree with those in Heb. 1. that Junius after St. Heirom and others have supposed him to be the Author of that Epistle he exhorts the Corinthians to Humility because saith he Our Lord Jesus Christ the Scepter of the Magnificence of God came not in Pride Consider says he what an Example is set before us if the Lord so humbled himself what should we do who live under the yoke of his grace There is a second Epistle of St. Clement mentioned by Eusebius l. 3. c. 38. And in the Apostolical Canons which speaks thus Brethren we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God nor ought we to think meanly of our Salvation for if we think too meanly of him we can hope but of little things from him St. Justin Martyr who being a Philosopher became a Christian in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew calleth Christ King and God he wrote an Exposition of the Faith and of the Trinity in the same Essence There is one God of all saith he who is known in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit for since the Father begot the Son of his own Nature and Essence and produced the Holy Spirit from the same therefore those which are of one and the same Essence are rightly esteemed to be of one and the same Dignity And he calls Christ God before all Ages And in his Apology to the Senate he saith That Son of God who alone is properly called his Son is the Word that was with him before the World was made as the Light is with the Sun Ireneus in his third Book against the Heresie of Valentinian c. c. 6. saith Neither the Lord nor the Holy Spirit would have absolutely named him God who was not God unless he had been the true God Thus the Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy foot-stool For the Father speaks it to the Son to whom he had given the Heathen for his Inheritance and put all things under his feet thus also it is said Thy throne O God is for ever c. Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee where both he that anointeth and he that is anointed are both called God by the Holy Spirit and speaking of the Personal Union c. 20. he says The merciful God in his love to Mankind did unite God and Man together and that it behoved the Mediator of God and Man to partake of the Nature of both This Author blames those that deny the Father of the Universe to have a Son who being the Word is the first Begotten and so is God and again in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he reproves them who deny Christ to be God being the Son of the Ineffable and Singular God and therefore calls him the Lord and God as being the Son of God And p. 33. he calls him The only Begotten of the Father of the Universe the Word and Power properly begotten by him and afterward made Man by the Virgin And he tells Triphon That the Son was begotten of his Father not by way of Abscission as if the Substance of the Father was divided but as one Fire is kindled by another without any diminution of the first which remains the same still viz. the Fire kindling and that which is kindled are of the same nature still Among many other I shall mention only
in prejudice of the Text but for the help of reasoning from the Text. First It is agreed that there is a Trinity and in this Trinity there is a Priority of Origination acknowledged by all So Smalsius I deny not that there is Father Son and Holy Ghost and that this may be called a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers say of the Son that he is God of God Light of Light true God of true God which expressions imply at least a Prerogative of Order though not of Nature in which respect Eusebius Caesar scarce deserves to be accused of Arianism by the Papists for affirming the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father against the Arians only he is observed to hesitate at their Co-equality where if he only mean the Co-equality of Order not of Nature he may pass for a good Catholick Secondly It is agreed that Christ is truly and properly called the Son of the Living God seeing he took his Original not after Humane manner from mortal Seed but was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb by the Holy Spirit over-shaddowing her and the Power of the most High coming upon her and is therefore called the Son of God Luke 1.35 Thirdly It is agreed that Christ is expresly called God in respect of his Mission office and Dominion and therefore is exalted above all Creatures to be adored with Divine Worship together with the Father and to be invoked as the Searcher of Hearts and Omnipotent as Smalcius confesseth in his Book of the Divinity of Christ and Socinus in his Defence against Christianus Franken The Question then may be reduced to these Terms Whether Christ the Messias the Redeemer and Saviour of us all be God not by Donation only from the Father by Pre-eminence of Authority or Dominion but by Nature not as to Indetermination Continuation or Signification Eviternal but Eternal without beginning or end not of an inferior or another but of the same Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost not of alike but the same Nature as the Ancients speak and as our second Article expresseth it Consubstantial here the Papists Lutherans the Greek Asian and African Church affirm as we do The Transilvanians some Polonians and some Apostate Hollanders as appears by their Writings which are in too many hands do deny The principal Arguments for Confirmation of our part are these Here we shall not heap up all the Arguments but choose such as time will permit to handle 1. From the Text Thou art Christ the Son of the living God whence I argue The Son is of the same Nature with the Father so Man begets Man c. but Christ is the Son of God the first begotten not the first created the only begotten his proper Son therefore he is of the same Essence with the Father and consequently as is exprest in the first Article of the same Power and Eternity Crellius endeavours to avoid the edge of this Answer by this sorry Evasion That the Son of God signifies no more than the Anointed of God so that he is called Son not by Nature but Unction and therefore the addition of The living God is omitted in St. Mark and Luke Ans This is to find fault with the Text rather than the Inference from it as if St. Matthew did intend to deceive and not inform us and were to be corrected by St. Mark and St. Luke as Crellius would have it 2. 'T is no contradiction to say less than had been said by another now in St. John we have the same Confession as herein Matthew Joh. 6.69 3. By Unction Kings and Priests are made but Sons by Generation and therefore the Word Son expresseth his Person as the word Christ his Office Christ and the Son of God signifies the same Person but not in the same respect Socinus objects That the same manner of expression is Isa 1.10 where the Israelites are called the Sons of the Living God not that they were Sons co-essential with God but that they were Sons of the Living God as opposed to Idols whence it appears this Epithet of God viz. Living shews of what sort of God Christ is Son not what sort of Son he is To which we answer That by the Adversary's confession this Epithet Living declares what sort of God the Father is therefore I infer that it shews also what sort of Son the Son is as the Maxim is Qualis pater talis filius i. e. In living Beings he that begets and he that is begotten is of the same sort 2. In Hosea Sons of the Living God are opposed to such as were not the People of God not as if they were natural Sons but adopted by calling not by being begotten as it is express They shall be called c. Rom. 9.26 So that here is no relation to Idols who neither beget nor are begotten 3. The Text shews the Son of the Living God is opposed to the Son of a Mortal Man as being of a more excellent kind for all saw him to be the Son of Man some said the Baptist others that Elias or Jeremiah were revived But this inspired Confession of St. Peter signifies something more sublime Q. P. we profess that thou art not meerly the Son of mortal Man as the Baptist and others of Humane Seed but that thou art the Son of that Eternal God which alway liveth As therefore he was of the same Nature with his Mother as the Son of Man so it is necessary that he be of the same Nature with the Father as the Son of the Living God Here Ostorodius objects That begetting of a Son implys the Mortality of the Parent for to what purpose are Sons begotten but to continue the succession of those that are mortal Ans This is very acute as if there were no difference between natural and temporal Generations and this which is eternal and ineffable Sons are adopted to supply succession and did the Ancient of days adopt the Son of Man for succession's sake See to what our Rationalists reduce the matter Socinus more distinctly explains the Mystery It is not to be denied that the Power of God did convey into or create in the Virgin 's womb some substance out of which conjoyn'd with that which was of the Virgin 's substance Christ became true Man who on that account had not only the Virgin for his Mother but God also for his Father considered as Man Ans Where doth the Scripture speak of this Socinian Mass Yes say they The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the most High over-shaddow thee True but doth it follow hence that he â—â—eated any such Substance as they feign this is Logick above our apprehension The Text speaks of a Vertue and Power not of any Substance now a Son is product from the Substance of the Father and in likeness of Nature whence he is called Son of the Virgin not of the Holy Ghost who communicated a power of Conception to her