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
Heathen that wrote his History would have done but we see some that call themselves Christians dare to do what the Heathen abhor And of this kind is that Calumny of Sandius which I could not read without great wonder That Constantine the Great did never intirely believe the Unity of the Trinity L. 2. p. 186. for proof whereof he produceth one Benedictus Presbyter who might be an Irish Priest for ought I know or can judge by his evidence his words are these p. 159. l. 2. Constantine was not wholly a Christian but as Tentator one that would make trial was baptized by Silvester in the name of the Trinity but not confessing the Unity And he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia And having obtained Victory but lost his Sence Sensu alienatus said I will go to Nicomedia where he was rebaptized declining to the Opinion of the Arians Such a rambling inconsistent Evidence as this is enough to draw a Prejudice against all the rest I have not all the Records whereby to examine the other Witnesses which he doth produce to prove Constantine an Arian Orosius whom he quotes says nothing of it Sulpitius Severus l. 2. p. 138. says That by the two Arius's the great Authors of the Arian Perfidy the Emperor was corrupted and thinking to do a religious Office he became a Persecutor he banished the Bishops delt severely with the Clergy and Laity that departed from the Communion of the Arians Now this being the first particular which this Witness mentioneth of Constantine and for remedy whereof he says the Nicene Council was called cannot be understood of Constantine's setled Judgment or constant Practice which is otherwise related by other Authentick Historians and by himself who says afterward that the Emperor embraced the Decrees of the Nicene Council which condemned the Arians who thereby were calmed and joyned in Communion with the Catholicks So that neither is this Witness consistent with himself for he was a profest Enemy to the Arians Who he says not being able to overthrow the Faith by Argument sought to destroy the Champions of it by suborning false Accusers and feining Faults where they could find none of which he gives Instances 3ly That Optatus calls Constantine an Apostate he only says but quotes not the place which is so much for his Cause that I believe he would not have omitted it if it were really so for it would have weighed much more than that rabble of Quotations which he collects as so many St. Omers Evidences such as Philostorgius and his Rhemenses and his Anonymous Authors what Socrates Sozom. Evagr. and other known Writers especially Eusebius Pamph. have said he durst not produce though he useth their names But he quotes at large the words of St. Heirome Chron. ad Am. 340. That Constantine at the end of his life was baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia declining to the Opinion of Arius And saith Sandius here is no Evasion left that it may be understood of Constantine the Son c. Perhaps Sandius had read that it was Constantine the Son that was baptized also at Nicomedia as he may in Marianus Scotus and certainly it was after his Death that the Persecution of the Catholicks begun when Constantius favoured the Arians By the way I observe that the first Witness Benedictus said Cessavit persecutio That on the Death of Constantine the Great the Persecution ceased which is contrary to what St. Heirom says That from the time of his Baptism the spoil of Churches and Discord of the whole World was continued home to his days But there is more to be replied to St. Heirome as first He doth not say he was of the Arian Opinion but declined to it which was only a Conjescture of St. Hierom's because he was baptized by Eus Nicod who was reputed an Arian But as it is observed by Richerius a Doctor of Sorbon p. 639. in his History of General Councils That this Eusebius did not openly profess himself an Arian as long as Constantine lived and the opposition that he made against Athanasius was persued on other pretences and that Constantine banished him upon a false Accusation that he had intercepted the Customs which were to be sent him from Alexandria to Constantinople And he was also so kind to Arius upon another false Suggestion That he differed nothing from the Nicene Faith Now St. Hierom hearing of these Actions of Constantine and not being truly informed of the reasons of them might conjecture that he inclined to the Arian Opinion and why might he not be mistaken in his Relation of Constantine as well as in that concerning Meletius in the same Chronicle whom he reports to be an Enemy of the Church and yet it is most certain saith Richerius that none besides Athanasius did do or suffer more for the Catholick Faith as St. Basil in his Epistles and Greg. Naz. who familiarly conversed with him have attested Doubtless neither Eusebius Pamph. nor Athanasius nor the rest of the approved Catholick Writers would have so recommended the Actions of Constantine if he had been a known Arian and for the sake of that Opinion had persecuted the Orthodox and Bishops such are the Weapons of Naked Gospellers who licking themselves clean with their Tongues are wont to spit out the Filth and Venome in Calumnies and Reproaches in the face of their Adversaries hence Athanasius is represented as a Drunkard and incontinent Person and the Fathers of the Nicene Council as a company of rude unexperienced unlearned and inconstant Men and the great Constantine who confirmed the Nicene Faith suffereth as an Arian to this day See Sandius p. 167. It is the Judgment of a very great Man Gothofred in his Notes on Philostorgius That while Constantine was living no Man durst open his mouth against the Nicene Creed and that those who followed Eusebius did profess their assent to it p. 62. And that Eusebius Nicomed and others of his Party in that Council did subscribe to the same p. 36. which Theodoret says they did that putting on the Sheep's skin they might act the more like Wolves Theod. l. 1. c. 19. As they did shortly after the Death of Constantine And Philostorgius says Some of them recanted while Constantine lived and confessed that they had done wickedly in subscribing to that Council for fear of his displeasure Gothof p. 43 44. And Photius observes it to be a Fiction of Philostorgius That Constantine sometime after the Nicene Council should send forth his Letters condemning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should subscribe to the same of whom Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos p. 132. says That he died firm in the Nicene Faith about a Year after that Council viz. Anno 326. And that Constantine dyed in the same Faith besides the Testimony of Athanasius in his Ad vitam Solitariam agentes Epiph. Her 69. Theod. l. 2. c. 5. And Lex 1. Cod. Theodos contra Heretic do attest
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