same particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used in both places yet the Apostle meant not to use it in the same sence in both the sence of it in the former is contrary to the later we rejoyce that our Sins are taken away by his Death but are sorry to have our Justification taken away by his Resurrection we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but we are justified by his Resurrection because thereon our Faith is built The inference which he makes is this So plain it is that the Faith which the Gospel requireth had its foundation in Natural Religion We see here how hard the Doctor strains to advance his Natural or Pelagian Religion he will not admit that the Apostle spake sence but contradictions in the same Period he speaks our sence not his own in the first part viz. that Christ died in our stead and we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but he speaks his own sence in the other part because he grounds our Justification on his Natural Religion and thereby evidently destroyeth the Evangelical Faith which we assert viz. That Christ by his Death made an Expiation or Satisfaction for our Sins In this the Doctor Yoaks himself with the Socinians for so Crellius speaking of the Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says They do not alway signify a meritorious Cause but only a final C. 1. Sect. 6. i. e. That he died for the good of Mankind as St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church and we are to lay down our lives for the brethren Col. 1.24 1 John 3.16 But can this be the sence of those plain places 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ hath suffered for our sins the just for the unjust and 2 Cor. 5.14 He gave himself a ransome for all and to taste death for every man and Luke 22.19 20. This is my bloud which was shed for you and Mat. 20.28 The son of man gave his life a ransome for many And ought we not to interpret this of Rom. 4. by the Analogy of those other places wherein the Scriptures do abound as Col. 1. Eph. 1. 1 Tim. 2. Heb. 7.27 1 Joh. 1.7 Revel 1.5 against all these Socinus urgeth that in 1 Kings 14.16 where it is said God shall deliver up Israel for the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin where he contends that the same signification of the words for the sins of Jeroboam ought to be interpreted as we do interpret that of Rom 4. which would be a kind of Blasphemy to say That Christ was delivered for our sins because not only we had sinned but had made him to sin as Jeroboam made Israel to sin Chap. 3. He applauds that Faith which is a Duty in Natural Religion It is saith he a Cardinal Vertue Justice towards God that pays him his due this was taught before Moses brought the positive Law into the World and that the Gospel builds on that foundation read Rom. 4. This speaks of the Faith of Abraham which hath been already considered Another Commendation of Natural Faith is That it is a great Promoter of Obedience wherein the Old Testament being silent as he says he sends us to Heb. 11. in the New Testament But had not those worthies any notice of the promised seed Had they no knowledge of a future state Did not they look for a heavenly country v. 16. And for a city which had foundations v. 10. Did not Abraham receive his Isaac in a type v. 19. Did not Moses see him who is invisible and had respect to the recompence of reward v. 26 27. Did not he write of Christ Did not the rest suffer in confidence of a better resurrection And did natural Faith instruct and enable them to do and suffer all these things If all these were the fruits and effects of a Natural Faith I cannot see what need there was of the Gospel if Nature shewed the way to Life and Immortality which 2 Tim. 1.10 says was brought to light by the Gospel if it taught so much Obedience Constancy and Patience how can Christ say John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by me How is it said That grace and truth came by Jesus Christ in opposition to what was revealed by Moses John 1.17 The law was weak Rom. 8.3 through the flesh and what that could not do God did by sending his own Son c. and made nothing perfect but the bringing in of a better hope Heb. 7.19 This it seems the Doctor would teach the Apostle for Gal. 3.3 This I would learn of you Received you the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith was this hearing of Faith the voice of Nature or the preaching of the Gospel It was the knowledge of Christ crucified which the Apostle so valued that he accounted all other vaine and ineffectual to Salvation P. 63. c. 1. And as our Author says What Devotion is there without Love and what Love without some knowledge of the Object And doubtless the more excellent the Object is the more will our love be increased when we consider that he who first loved us was the Eternal Son of God and that he so loved us as to die for us that we might live to and with him this will heighten our love to him above all things for what are Moses and the Prophets or the Apostles were they crucified for us have they redeemed us from the wrath of God They indeed taught us the will of God and gave us Divine as well as Moral Precepts but Christ only can write them in our hearts he only can pardon our sins having obtained Remission at the expence of his own Blood We therefore joyn with the Doctor in recommending the Duties of Natural Religion and say these ought we to do but by no means to leave the Duties of Evangelical Faith undone or disbelieved for though that hath done vertuously in many respects yet this excelleth them all In Chap. 4. he strikes again at the Foundation of Faith under the name of Credulity which he calls a Vice and the danger in this is when we pay that to a * Doth not this insinuate that Châ—â—â—t is a Creature Creature which is due to God only and mentioneth a Question of Mr. Chillingworth's to the Romanists Why implicit Faith in our Lord might not as well avail for Justification as implicit Faith in the Church By implicit Faith in the Church the Romanists mean to believe as the Church believes yet I do not believe the Papists think this implicit Faith will justify them without good Works And if by implicit Faith in Christ he means only a general belief of his Doctrines without obedience to his Commands neither is this available for Justification so that it was no such difficult Question but it might be
Conclusion he deserves to be shaken into the Fire again for the impotent Creature doth not only hiss at the mistaken Author of Nolumus leges Angliae mutari but on the whole Convocation for their stiffness to their Constitutions whose very Authors says he in the Conclusion were they now living and true to their own reason must be willing to abolish them This is the Doctor 's enlarged Charity to the deceased Compilers of our Liturgy that they would have done as he desireth i. e. removing the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the Litany Doxology and I know not what Constitutions besides the Institutions of our Saviour to wit the two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist the ends whereof this Doctor with the Socinians doth utterly destroy and retains them only as Rites and Badges of an outward Profession of a Naked Gospel But let us enquire wherein this enlarged Charity of the Doctor 's doth consist Charity is either the love of God or of our Neighbours Now first our love to God ought to bear proportion with the love he hath bestowed on us of which the Apostle Joh. 3.16 saith God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Ver. 17. That the world by him might be saved The World then without Christ was in a lost and perishing condition God had for Sin shut them up under a sentence of Condemnation and it was his infinite Goodness and Wisdom to contrive the Means of our Salvation such as might reconcile us to himself to which end he thought this the fittest to send his only begotten Son into the World to dye for our sins the just for the unjust making him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him of this love the Apostle with admiration says Behold what manner of love the Father hath shewn to us c. If God had only sent a Prophet a Man of God to make a fuller Declaration of his Will this had not been a reason of so great Admiration but when he sent his only begotten Son that was one with the Father and laid help on him that was mighty able to save us to the utmost being God and Man this deserves the Sic So and the Ecce Behold and our admiration What manner of Love had he been the Son of God only by a miraculous Conception which freed him from Original Corruption had he only lived a Holy Life and left us a good Example had he only died to confirm the truth of his Doctrine as the Socinians say the Birth of St. John Baptist his austere Life and Death might come near to all this The Gift therefore here spoken of must be such as became the Infinite Goodness of God such as might reconcile his Love to us with his Love to his Justice such as might be sufficient to satisfie for the Sins of all that should believe in his Son and obey the Commands of God by him Which now is the greater Obligation of our Love to God to believe as I have said the Socinians do or as the Catholicks That God sent his only Begotten i. e. his Eternal Son the Wonderful the Mighty GOD to satisfie for our Sins to instruct us in all things that concern the Glory of God and our own Salvation to hear our Prayers and relieve all our Necessities to sanctifie our Souls and make us Partakers of the Divine Nature by the operation of the Spirit of Grace This is Love and this the Gift that God bestowed on us through his Infinite Love and in some proportion we ought so to love God as he first loved us And to think of and esteem of this Gift less than what the Scripture hath valued it at is not rightly to apprehend his Love or our infinite Obligations to make suitable Returns 2. As to our Love to Christ if he were only a Man that taught us the Will of God so did the Apostles if he died only to confirm his Doctrine and give us an Example of Constancy and Patience so have many Martyrs done But Rom. 5.7 8. God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us and had he only died for us and not been able to rise again and to take up his life as well as to lay it down had he not destroyed all the Enemies of our Salvation and ascended to Heaven having all Power committed to him we might argue as the Apostle doth If Christ be not risen and if he be not the Eternal Son of God to make Intercession for us and to send the Holy Ghost to sanctifie us then is our Preaching vain and our Faith is vain and we are yet in our Sins but now we may sing ouâ— Epinicion over all our Enemies The stâ—ng of Death is sin and the strength of Sin is the Law but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.56 57. Then for his Love to the Holy Spirit of God it is too well known that the Socinians deny his Deity and say That the Holy Spirit is nothing separate from the Word so that we need not to Baptize in his Name to praise him in our Doxology or to pray to him Come Holy Ghost Eternal God c. Our natural Reason and Faith in God makes the assistance of any other Spirit needless and why then should we wait on the Spirit of God any longer or believe that God will give any other Spirit to them that ask it Is there no other Spirit but that which works in the Children of Disobedience Are not some Souls an Habitation of God through the Spirit Read we not of the Spirit of the Son Gal. 4.6 that helps our Infirmities Do we not read of the divers Gifts of the Spirit and that it is Christ's Vice-Roy as I may say to preside over his Church to the World's end And is there no Love no Obedience due to his Spirit but we must joyn with the Socinians to pluck the Holy Ghost from his Throne 2. As for his enlarged Charity to his Brethren what love doth he manifest to the Church of God that hath been founded on this Rock of the Confession of St. Peter Thou art Christ the Son of the living God when by his Principles they are proclaimed to be Idolaters as worshipping a Creature besides the Creator and giving him and the Holy Spirit which by his Maxims are not God by nature the same Divine Honour which is due to God only And as to the Church of England particularly it hath been declared how contrary his Opinions are to her avowed Doctrines more especially his Charity to the Convocation of the Clergy at Westminster whom he condemns to be too stiff to their Constitutions when he says All the World expected a Condescention from them is not very large It was no very good Opinion that he
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
baptized shall be saved And this Covenant Dat quod Jubet it assists us in willing and doing what is required Heb. 8.6 'T is a better Covenant established on better Promises And Heb. 8.10 and Rom. 16. This is my Covenant I will put my Law into their hearts and write them in their minds and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People and I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more But he commends especially the Character of the Gospel as a Message and so makes our Saviour only an eminent Prophet that came to advance the Natural Religion a little higher than other Prophets had done his design being no other than to advance Natural Religion to a higher perfection by nobler Precepts and richer Promises as he says This is no more than what the Turks will grant in Honour of our Saviour But there is another Notion of the Gospel more common than the other two though purposely omitted by the Doctor which is as we render it the New Testament of our Saviour who was not only as Socinus saith a Witness of that Testament but the Testator himself that Testament whereby Christ makes us Heirs of all that he hath purchased for us that Testament which was sealed by his Blood and took effect by his Death and Resurrection for the Salvation of all that believe in him and obey his Commandments Grotius on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes it parallel with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to kill or cut down But as he observes the Gospel is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Covenant in a strict sence wherein two Parties do mutually Covenant but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Will or Testament of a Superiour who adds Rewards to the performance of his Will and it is called the New Testament being a Covenant of Grace not of Debt upon our Works but Mercy upon our Faith So that Grotius concludes the most proper Notion of the Gospel is that of a Testament by which the Heir is obliged under certain Conditions and by way of a Trust reposed in him and he defines it to be the Will of Christ confirmed to us by his Death whereby we have a Right to all his Promises on performance of his Commandments But the Doctor carefully avoids any word that might imply the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and therefore as he wholly suppresseth that of a Testament which hath its effect from the Death of the Testator as our Saviour often calls it the New Testament in his Blood Luke 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 so he slights that of a Covenant as being wont to be confirmed by the Death of the Sacrifice for in all Languages Hebrew Greek and Latin as well as in English to strike a Covenant imported the Sanction of it by shedding of Blood and prefers the Notion of a Message as if Christ had done no more for us than Moses or any of the Prophets i. e. only declared the Precepts of God which is pure Socinianism Chap. 1. p. 1. Col. 2. he says The design of the Gospel is no other than the advancement of Primitive Natural Religion to a higher perfection for which he alledgeth those words of St. John 1 Joh. 1.3 These things we write unto you that you may have fellowship with us c. The Patriarchs knew only the Father but our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son as therefore in the face of Jesus Christ we see more of the Father's goodness so are we thereby obliged to higher strains of love to him and one another which is the sum of Natural Religion And again p. 2. Col. 1. The design of the Gospel is to exalt us to the highest perfection of the Natural Law by making us perfect as our Father which is in heaven is perfect This is the Authentick General Test says he whereby every Doctrine must be tried that claimeth our entertainment as a Gospel truth And thus he equalleth Moral Vertue with Cristian Faith and teacheth Pelagianism which makes the strength of Natural Endeavours sufficient to Salvation without the special Grace of Christ as if that were not necessary to humble us in the sense of our Sins to mortifie our Lusts inlighten our Minds subdue our perverse Wills and purifie our Hearts they may be good Moral Men that conform to the Rules of Reason but no good Christians unless they are assisted by the Grace of the Holy Spirit they may have a form of Godliness but not the power thereof He greatly extols Natural Religion affirming That the Faith which the Gospel requires had its Foundation in Natural Religion Natural Faith as he says is proposed as the Mother of Evangelical p. 14. c. 2. p. 14. Col. 2. I have proved saith he that Faith in God is a Duty of Natural Religion a Moral Vertue a participation of the Divine Nature in one of God's Attributes his Justice to be valued as self-good c. P. 1. Col. 2. He makes the Law of Nature the Foundation on which the New Covenant so leaneth as to be kept firm in its place I fear that the Reason of his thus extolling Natural Religion is because that in its highest perfection it can attain only to the knowledge of the Unity of the Godhead though in the depraved State of Nature Men generally worshipped many False instead of the One true God but this Natural Religion suits better with the design of Arius than of the Gospel and therefore the Author espouseth and magnifies it He adds That as Abraham is proposed as the Father of the faithful Natural Faith is also proposed as the Mother of Evangelical Here therefore we must enquire whether the Faith of Abraham were meerly a Natural Faith and he had no Revelations that begat and strengthened his Faith The Arians grant that as our Saviour says Before Abraham was I am that Christ was before the Creation of the World the Lamb slain from the beginning that by him the World was made yet the Doctor declareth his opinion that the Patriarchs had the knowledge of God the Father only but it is like that of Abailardus contrary to the opinion of all other Doctors of the Church and the tenor of the Scriptures for how then is it said that Abraham rejoyced to see my day and saw it the day of his Incarnation in Isaac's wonderful Conception his Death and Resurrection in Abraham's readiness to sacrifice him and God's delivering him from death from whence Abraham received him in a Figure or Type of Christ Hebr. 11.19 Tertullian thus expounds that place That as Christ being a man was after Abraham so as God he was before Abraham and as being a man he was the son of David but as God he was David 's Lord as man he was born into the world as God he made the world Tertul. de
Trinitat Pag. 9. Col. 2. He takes occasion to mention the two great Institutions of our Saviour viz. Baptism and the Sacrament of his Body and Blood these he calls Positive Rites which he i. e. Christ appointed thereby to ingage us to profess our selves his Disciples and are not Parts of his Covenant but Badges of his Followers and Acknowledgments of our Homage to his Person These Rituals says he we shall not neglect yet I find not one word of the Eucharist all that he says of Baptism is Pag. 22. Col. 2. That the Design of Baptism as he had said before was an open Profession of Faith in defiance to the World and all its Powers forgetting what he had said before on our Saviour's words and Commission to his Disciples whom he sent to baptize He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved not simply as he notes he that believeth but he that believeth and is baptized and as the Apostle Hebr. 6. reckoneth Baptism among the Fundamentals so it hath the Characters which our Author requires in a Fundamental viz. a Precept with a Promise annexed shall be saved yet he thinks it but a Ceremony and Badge of outward profession I cannot but take notice how the Doctor pretending to be an Advocate for Infant Baptism turns Prevaricator and instead of giving them a right to it robs them of the benefits thereof he says indeed that the Church may upon small security from other sureties admit any Infant for a Member i. e. of such a Society as do profess the Faith of Christ and by his argument they may as well omit as admit the Baptism of Children for says he since the Gospel is the established Religion and the Profession of the very Parents maketh great odds against any danger of the contrary the Church may c. So that the Profession of the Parents may supersede the small security of other Sureties and if there be no other end of Baptism but to ingage Infants to the Profession of Faith in Christ it may be omitted till they are adult or if they should die before they who are not baptized are in no worse condition than they who are baptized And is not our Author deeply baptized into the Sentiments of the Socinians in all this and become a Disciple of them and the Antipedobaptists A Son of the Church of England is taught that Baptism is generally necessary to Salvation That it is certain by God's Word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved in the Rubrick after Baptism and in the Catechism Baptism is defined to be an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof and the benefit of it is this That being by nature born in Sin and Children of Wrath we are thereby made the Children of Grace or as it is more largely expressed the baptized are made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But the Socinians reason cannot apprehend how this can be As to the other Sacrament one Egg is not better like another than his Discourse of the Lord's Supper is with that of Smalcius in the Doctor 's Book called the Constant Communicant which he that reads will find to be but a Comment on Smalcius his Text who as generally the Socinians do teach that this Sacrament which they call a Rite was instituted only for a Remembrance of the Death of Christ not that we receive any new benefit by it or that any thing is therein conveyed or sealed to us and so the words of Consecration are interpreted by the Doctor as by a Socinian thus i. e. This whole action which is now doing is my Body which is given for you i. e. signifies my giving myself to Death for your Salvation so that ye ought alway to commemorate my Death by this Rite or Ceremony And Socinus plainly denieth that the Sacraments are strengthners of our Faith or seals whereby the Promises of God are confirmed to us or the strength of heavenly Grace encreased The Doctor also calls the Sacraments Rites makes the Lord's Supper only a Grace-cup to be commended to one another after a Feast and breaking some Bread prepared for that use and therefore we need not dread to be constant Communicants or to be precise in our Reverence at it as if he would have us forbear kneeling as the Socinians do lest we should be thought to Adore On a design to deny that there is the presence of Christ's Body or Bloud in any sence or that any Grace or Promise is thereby conveyed or sealed to us these things are some of them obscurely and some of them too plainly asserted in that Book One general Remark more which I formerly mention'd is That he often speaks of a Divinity of Christ but never of his Deity which is noted to be studiously done by the Socinians that though they grant our Saviour a kind of Divinity as a Man of God yet will not honour him with the title of a Deity as God and Man wherein they deal with Christ as the Heathen dealt with their Hero's as Servius notes on Virgil Deos vocabant perpetuos Divos ex Hominibus factos or as we call our ancient Writers Divus Angustinus This is observed by Cloppenburgh against Smalcius that he allowed our Saviour to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Partaker of the Divine Nature which St. Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1.4 which may be attributed to all holy Men. Smalcius placing in his Frontispiece the 9th Verse of Col. 2. keeps to this word and thus renders it In Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Divinity bodily on which Cloppenburgh observes that with Smalcius the Deity and Divinity do differ as much as Infinite and Finite And it is to be feared that the Doctor hath the same Notion though not only our Translation but Pagnine and Arias Montanus read as we do the Fulness of the Godhead c. for he still keeps to the word Divinity when he speaks of Christ as Smalcius did before him Another Remark is his depraving the nature and necessity of Evangelical Faith and setting Reason and Natural Religion above and against it Here first I remark how well the Doctor agrees with Volkelius in his Discourse of Faith There are saith the Doctor but two Articles of Faith at most and sometime they are reduced to one and either of them Faith and Repentance There are saith Volkelius two general Precepts of the Gospel Faith and Repentance which are sometime joyned in one Precept and sometime in distinct Precepts De fide And he mentions the same of the Gospel as our Doctor often doth That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved But then Volkelius by this Faith means an
stupid belief of a multitude of impertinent and incredible Propositions without yea some of them against all Reason without any fruit but strife contrary to the Simplicity wherein the Gospel glorieth and to that contempt which God himsef sheweth to acts of mee◠Understanding which opprobrious Terms he mentioneth also p. 51. c. 1. Doth not the Doctor fix these opprobrious Terms on our Blessed Saviour when it is evident that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred in his Name as well as in the Name of the Father and the Holy Ghost especially seeing the Doctor cannot deny Baptism to be a Fundamental of the Christian Religion as having an express Precept and a Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it And to be baptized in the Name of the Father c. is to devote ourselves to the Worship and Obedience of the Person in whose Name we are baptized and by consequence being we are baptized equally into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we acknowledge them to be of equal Dignity and are obliged to pay them equal Worship This Precept of our Saviour being no part of the Doctor 's Natural Religion but a prime Fundamental of the Christian doth irrefragably convince the Doctor to be guilty of gross Impiety when he in p. 57. c. 2. and p. 51. c. 1. discoursing of the Changes which later Ages have made in Matters of Faith under which by the tendency of the whole Book that of the Doctrine of the Trinity is chiefly intended he infers our Saviour to be a humorous and capricious Lord and what means this passage p. 30. c. 1. That it must cast dishonour no less on his Wisdom than his Majesty c. if we think he will grant Salvation on no other Terms than a belief of the whole truth concerning the Dignity of his Person for this will imply that he came and suffered on purpose to purchase to himself the honour of such a Belief c. P. 52. c. 2. The proper Dominions of Faith he says exceed not this one proposition That God cannot lye Ans What difference then is there between the Faith of a Jew or a Turk and that of a Christian they believe this as firmly as the Doctor doth and are they as much Christians as he He allows it no value from its relation to the Person of Christ though he doubteth not the Person of Christ to be infinitely valuable The Turks grant he was a just Man and a true Prophet but not an All-sufficient Saviour But who are they that advance Faith above Holiness yea against it too not only the thorough pac'd Antinomians and Solifidians but many who call themselves Orthodox who say Faith is the hand whereby we apply Christ to ourselves and by this application Christ is made ours and his Righteousness imputed to us as if it were our own and it justifies not by its own worthiness but by the Merit of Christ which it lyeth hold on and applieth I perceive the Doctor learnt this from Mr. Beedle's Preface to his Socinian Catechism where he rejects the same Tenets because they are not to be found in express terms in Scripture viz. The apprehending and applying of Christ's righteousness to ourselves by Faith of Christ's righteousness imputed to us of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile us to him of Christ's Merits or his meritorious Obedience both active and passive of which he says That as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture so neither the things contained in them I doubt not but the Doctor read that Preface and applies it to the same end And where in the name of Christ saith our Author do we in all the Book of God or in Reason which he alway equalleth with the Scripture meet any intimation of this fine Doctrine Application of Christ to our selves the hand of Faith imputed Righteousness c. What are they but Terms of Art invented by false Apostles But were the Compilers of our Liturgy false Apostles Or do we not find the matter if not the words therein when we pray God to deliver us by his Cross and Passion Or is there no Merit in them when we are taught to pray That by the Merits and Death of Jesus Christ and through Faith in his Bloud we and the whole Church may obtain Remission of Sins and all other benefits of his Passion See the Prayer after the Communion Do not they inform us of the * In Warning the Communion meritorious Cross and Passion of our Saviour whereby alone we obtain Remission of our Sins and are made Partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven Or was he a false Apostle that teacheth us That Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him But the Doctor will not recede a hairs breadth from his Socinian Principles lest he should acknowledge that Christ died for our Sins and rose for our Justification which he says the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not bear p. 14. c. 2. The Doctor is much pleased with his Microscope which discovers a multitude of little Animals where the best eye sees nothing but limpid Water But had he a spiritual Eye he might by the Mirror of the Gospel discover many saving Truths which to a carnal Eye are not discernable Another Complaint against Faith is p. 54. That it is exalted above and against Charity and he calls the Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Eternal Deity of Christ the first and most uncharitable Dispute that ever rent the Christian World P. 55. c. 1. But who began these Disputes but Ebion Cerinthus and the Arians who used the Gospel as the poor Man was used that fell among Theives left it naked and wounded and opposed all that came to its relief were we all united in the Faith of the Gospel which teacheth us that we have one Lord one Faith one Baptism viz. in the Holy Trinity it would be a more effectual means to enlarge Charity than the new Heresies that deny the Lord that bought them and being uncharitable to their Lord cannot be otherwise to his Servants they that thus wound the Head the Deity of Christ cannot but rent the Members who by that Faith are united to him The old Serpent was permitted to bruise the Heel of the Messiah i. e. as Commentators say his natural Body of flesh and blood but these Serpents attempt his Head i. e. his Divinity but in vain for he shall break their heads The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against our Faith that Christ is the Son of the Living God upon which Christ hath founded his Church The great Complaint against Faith is yet behind That it is exalted above and against Reason for nothing is to be believed further than Reason proveth it to be true p. 56. c. 1. That is the Socinians Reason But by the assistance of Faith the Christian may believe
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