be in the Infallible Writings viz. God as well as Man The Word was God John 1. 1. The Word was made Flesh v. 14. And this Word is the Only begotten of the Father in the same Verse God was manifest in the Flesh 1. Tim. 3. 16. He is called not only God in these places and in several others but he is stil'd the True God 1 John 5. 20. and the Great God Tit. 2. 13. The Lord of all Acts 10. 36. God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Hence we must conclude that there is a necessity of believing the Messias to be the very God of the same Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost for these are the two other Persons included in the Deity So that hence it will follow that it is requisite to believe the Holy Trinity i. e. that there are in the Godhead Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the Doctrin that our Saviour himself taught and he taught it that it might be believed Mat. 28. 19. where the Celebration of Baptism which is a solemn part of Divine Worship is commanded to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost who are One God 1 John 5. 7. These Three are One one Essence or Being as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports Those words of the Apostle are observable 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptised in the name of Paul As much as to say Baptism is in the name of God and not of a Man Therefore when it is said Go and Baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost it is included that these Three are God i. e. Three Persons of one and the same Deity Thus it is manifest that the believing of Iesus's being the Messias or Anointed is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian Believer but he must further believe these Propositions or Articles viz. that the Son of God was made flesh i. e. assumed our Human Nature that Christ is True God that He with the Father and the Spirit are One God for these are not only expressed in the Gospels and Epistles out of both which we are to gather the Fundamental Articles of Faith and consequently are to be assented to by all Christians but the very Nature of the thing it self dictates that we ought to have a firm belief of these Truths for otherwise when a Man professes his belief in the Messias he is yet ignorant of the Person he pretends to believe in He doth not know whether he believes in a God or in a Man or to which of these he is beholding for the Good he looks for by the Messias's coming Now Sir you with your Reasonableness of Christianity what do you think of this Is it not reasonable that a Christian should as the Apostle speaks of himself know whom he hath believed 2 Tim. 1. 12. Nay is it not indispensably necessary that he should know whether it be a Divine or Human or Angelical Power that he is obliged to that so he may accordingly proportion his Affections and Service for what ever the late Set of Socinians hold there must be a difference made between the Homage which is paid to a Creature such as they declare Christ to be and that which is due only to the Creator I will refer the Reader to the Incomparable Bishop Pearson on the Second Article of the Creed where he shews the Necessity of our believing Christ to be the Eternal Son of God and God himself 1. For the directing and confirming of our Faith concerning the Redemption of Mankind 2. For the right informing of us about that Worship and Honour which are due to him 3. For giving us a right apprehension and consequently a due value of the Infinite Love of God the Father in sending his Only-begotten Son into the World to die for us Thus this Judicious Writer But our Nameless Author would persuade us that there is no necessity of believing any such thing Then in the next place we are to have a right conception concerning our Recovery and Restauration by this Messias who is God-Man And here those several Scriptures will furnish us with Articles As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteonsness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5. 18 19. He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9. 26. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many Heb. 9. 28. Christ hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust 1 Pet. 3. 18. He gave himself a Ransom for all men 1 Tim. 2. 6. Ye are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. And to it is prefix'd ye know to let us understand that this Article is to be known and assented to We are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 23. We are reconciled unto God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. By him now we have received the Atonement v. 11. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 14. It behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Luk. 24. 46. Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead Acts 17. 3. He was taken up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God Mark 16. 19. These and the like places afford us such Fundamental and Necessary Doctrins as these are that by and for the Meritorious Righteousness and Obedience of Christ the Second Adam we are accounted Righteous and Obedient in the sight of God That Christ was a Sacrifice for us and suffered in our stead That he satisfied Divine Justice by paying an Infinite Price for us That by vertue of that Payment all the Debts i. e. all the Sins of Believers are perfectly absolved That hereby the anger of the Incensed Deity is pacified and that we are entirely Reconciled to him That we have an assurance of all this by Christ's rising from the dead and ascending triumphantly into Heaven These are Principles of the Oracles of God Heb. 5. 12. These are part of the Form of sound words 2 Tim. 1. 13. which are indispensable Ingredients in the Christian Faith which you may know by this that if a man be obliged to the belief of the Messias's Coming it is undeniably requisite that he should know what the Messias came to do for him and that he should firmly yield assent to it This I think no Man of Reason will deny and then it will follow that these Articles which I have last mentioned are the Necessary and Unexceptionable object or matter of the Faith of a Christian Man And here likewise it were easie to shew that Adoption Iustification Pardon of Sins c. which are Privileges and Benefits bestowed
Noted by us as that which gives great light in the present case The discovery of the Doctrines of the Gospel was Gradual It was by certain steps that Christianity climb'd to its heighth We are not to think then that all the Necessary doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd to the world in our Saviour's time Not but that all that were necessary for that time were published but some which were necessary for the succeeding one were not then discover'd or at least not fully They had ordinarily no belief before Christ's Death and Resurrection of those Substantial Articles i. e. that he should die and rise again but we read in the Acts and in the Epistles that these were Formal Articles of Faith afterwards and are ever since necessary to compleat the Christian Belief so as to other Great Verities the Gospel increased by degrees and was not Perfect at once Which furnishes us with a reason why most of the Choicest and Sublimest Truths of Christianity are to be met with in the Epistles of the Apostles they being such doctrines as were not clearly discover'd and open'd in the Gospels and the Acts. Thus I have I conceive amply satisfied the foregoing Objection and I hope the Reader is convinc'd of the True Grounds why we must not expect all Necessary Points of Christianity in the Writings of the four Evangelists If our present Writer had thought of this and had distinguish'd of Times he had not formed such an Ill Notion of Christianity as we find he hath done But it is not only upon Mistake that this Author proceeds his fault is much worse It is too apparent that by this Abbreviating of Christianity and by his voluntary neglecting what the Epistolary Writings deliver he designs to exclude those Fundamental Doctrines which have been owned as such in the Church of Christ. So much for the First General Head which I propounded to insist upon CHAP. VI. The next General Charge against him is that the Texts of Scripture which respect the HOLY TRINITY are disregarded by him or interpreted after the Anti-Trinitarian Mode This is proved from plain Instances The latter more especially is evidenced from his interpreting the Messias and the Son of God to be the very same as to signification and that no more is denoted by one term than by the other The Weakness of the Socinian Arguing on this occasion fully laid open and the Texts where these terms are mentioned plainly cleared A Text produced and urged that confutes the vain surmises of the Racovians about those expressions and that reduces them to an unavoidable Absurdity The Messias is a Title of Christ's Office The Son of God is the Title of his Divinity The former is founded on his Mission from the Father The latter on his Peculiar Property as he is the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity and consequently they are not synonymous terms The Gentleman would wind in two Learned Prelates but his attempt proves ineffectual He is given to Shuffling He abuses Scripture by quoting it MY next Charge against this Gentleman was this that those Texts of Scripture which respect the Holy Trinity were either disregarded by him or were interpreted by him after the Antitrinitarian Mode And this he is so far from denying that he openly avows it Vindic. p. 22 23. By which he hath made it clear that he espouses that doctrine of the Socinians When I had offer'd those two plain Texts Mat. 28. 19. Iohn 1. 1. to prove the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity he takes no care to give any Resolution about them though he was absolutely oblig'd to do it because those Texts are not in the Epistles but in the Gospels out of which latter he saith he made his Collection of Articles but he should rather have said and that with Truth out of which he drew One Article Nay which is more strange though he particularly mentions p. 9. my taking notice of his omitting these Texts in his Treatise nay though he sets them down at large in his Vindication yet he hath the confidence to run presently to another thing and he shifts it off by one impertinent matter or other and faith not one syllable with reference to those Famous Texts which are such remarkable testimonies to the doctrine of the Trinity Who could do this but a Socinianiz'd Writer And who could do this but a man that was wholly careless of his Credit and did not care how he acted And this very thing doth moreover shew that this Author let him pretend what he will is as great a despiser of the Gospels when any thing in them doth not serve his turn as he is of the Epistles This will perpetually stick upon him and he will never be able to wipe it off If ever he accounts for this he must at the same time make an acknowledgment of his crazy memory and of something worse Again as it is evident that he rejects the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity so more especially and particularly he waves that of the Deity of our Saviour Which appears from this that he justifies the Charge against him viz. that he made these terms the Messias and the Son of God the very same as to Signification p. 23. Vindic. Which is the very thing that Slichtingius and other Racovians insist upon and make a great stir about And herein they write after their Master who largely pursues this Argument for so he reckons it to be viz. that there is no difference between the Name Christ or Messias and that other the Son of God He alledges the very same Text that our Vindicator doth and some others He argues from Matt. 16. 16. compared with Luk. 9. 20. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God saith the former place Thou art the Christ of God faith the latter therefore Christ and the Son of God are not only the same person but these two expressions signifie the very same thing and no more What a weak and pitiful Consequence is this For it is grounded on this absurd bottom namely that when any of the Evangelists speak about the same matter if one of them adds some words yea some material Passages which are not in the other these must be reckoned to be the very same with what the other said though they were utterly omitted by him Then we may argue thus St. Matthew saith Christ began to preach and to say Repent Mat. 4. 17. St. Mark saith He preach'd the Gospel saying Repent ye and believe the Gospel Mark 1. 14 15. therefore Repenting and Believing are the same and there is no difference between them Would not a Man be hooted at for such Arguing as this Yet this is the very Reasoning of our Racovian and of this late Proselyte of theirs In one Evangelist he saith our Saviour is called Christ in another the Son of God therefore the denominations of the Son of God and Christ are identified Again they endeavour to prove
it from comparing Mat. 26. 63. Mark 14. 61. with Luk. 22. 67. In the former places 't is related that the High Priest asked our Saviour whether he was the Son of God the Son of the Blessed in the latter whether he was the Christ. Whence they roundly conclude that those Names Christ and the Son of God are synonymous But they do this without any shew of reason because they cannot as Slichtingius himself confestes simply from an Omission infer the identity of the things which are expressed and which are left out viz in the Writings of the Evangelist and consequently their Arguing is vain and groundless The plain and satisfactory Answer to it is this that St. Luke guided by the Holy Ghost in giving the Narrative of what was done relating to our Lord omitted the particular words which the other Evangelists have and this is usual with all the Evangelists at one time or other But a man can't infer thence that the words and expressions which are used by them are of the same import and signification After this rate when I read that Christ fell upon his face Mat. 26. 39. and that he fell on the ground Mark 14. 35. and that he fell on his kness for so 't is in the Greek Luk. 22. 41. I may conclude that face and ground and kness are the very same thing and one of them signifies no more than the other This is the wild Logick of these men Can there be a more extravagant way of talking than this Especially if we remember what Pretences to Reason and Good Sense these men make above the rest of mankind There are other Texts quoted by our Author to prove that there is no difference between Christ and the Son of God as to the signification of the words but they may easily be answered from what I have said concerning the interpretation of the foregoing Texts There is one place to name no more which confutes all the foresaid surmises of the Socinians about the identity of those Terms it is that famous Confession of Faith which the Ethiopian Eunuch made when Philip told him that he might be baptized if he believed Acts 8. 37. I believe saith he that Iesus Christ is the Son of God This without doubt was said according to that apprehension which he had of Christ from Philip's instructing him for it is said he preached unto him Iesus v. 35. He had acquainted him that Jesus was the Christ the Anointed of God and also that he was the Son of God which includes in it that he was God And accordingly this Noble Proselyte gives this account of his Faith in order to his being baptiz'd in order to his being admitted a Member of Christ's Church I believe that Iesus is the Son of God or you may read it according to the Greek I believe the Son of God to be Iesus Christ. Where there are these two distinct Propositions 1. That Iesus is the Christ the Messias 2. That he is not only the Messias but the Son of God If you do not own these two Propositions included in his words you must say that the Eunuch though instructed by Philip spoke Non-sense for it to be Christ and to be the Son of God are of the same signification then his words sound thus I believe that Iesus Christ is Christ I believe the Messias is the Messias This absolutely follows from the foresaid Notion that the Messias and the Son of God are synonymous So then here is an Absurd Tautology instead of a Sober confession of Faith from this Eminent Convert and Philip accepts of it as a good and right profession of his Belief This you must grant or else you must acknowledg that the Messias and Son of God are not of the same signification but are distinctly attributed to Iesus These words will force you to acknowledg this for in saying he believes Christ to be the Son of God or that the Son of God is Christ he lets us know that these two viz. to be the Messias and to be the Son of God are different things though they meet in the same Person and consequently that in all those places which are very many where the Son of God is added to the Messias we must understand it as an addition to the Sense whereas according to this Writer and his Complices these two are identified and consequently here is a Nonsensical Reiteration in the words for they amount to no more than this I believe Iesus Christ to be Christ. This is that Absurdity which they are reduced to But yet I will subjoyn this that we are not unwilling to grant that our Saviour is sometimes call'd the Son of God because of his Miraculous Conception also because of the Dignity of his Mission and sometimes because of his Resurrection But then we say that these do not exclude another and higher cause of this Appellation viz. his Eternal Filiation he was begotten from Eternity of the substance of the Father by an ineffable Generation If then we will speak of these two Denominations distinctly and properly we must say that one is the Name of his Office the other of his Divinity and consequently that Christ and the Son of God are not expressions of the same latitude and import And how indeed can they be For they have different foundations the one hath its rise from the Divine Mission viz. that of the Father who sent and anointed him to be a Saviour the other is grounded in the singular and peculiar Property of the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity and so is the Name of his Person Wherefore it is most irrationally and absurdly done of our Late Convert in a fond Imitation of his Brethren to confound these two which are really Distinct. I mention'd this as a proof of his being a Socinian and he lets it remain a Proof and so do I. But here I would only observe that he and they proceed in a Preposterous manner when they tell us that Christ is called the Son of God because of his Office and its Dignity whereas it is evident that he had the Office and Dignity because he was the Son of God and because none could perform the Office but he that was so He was not God a Metaphorical God as the Socinians sometimes make him because he was Christ or the Messias but he was the Messias because he was God even the True God He was the Christ of God because he was the Son of God And this Filiation in its strictest and properest sense implies his Divine Nature and his Coessentiality with the Father He would here wind in p. 23. the late Archbishop of Canterbury as if he understood the foregoing Terms as the Socinians do But his words that are cited do not necessarily import any such thing for Nathanael might own our Saviour to be the Messias and call him the Son of God and yet it doth not follow thence that the
for a man shall scarcely hear a more Audacious word though 't is true he endeavours to mollifie it with an if As to what he saith about my taking notice of the Gentleman 's slighting the Epistolary Writings I have fully answered it in the foregoing Papers and therefore shall add no more here He proceeds next to those Socinan Authors whose undue Notions concerning God I glanc'd upon The Author of the Considerations c. in reply to the Right Reverend Bishop who had from the notion of God's Eternity inferr'd that he was Self-existent or from himself hath these words What makes him viz. the Bishop say God must be from himself or self-originated for then he must be before he was which this Writer concludes to be a Contradiction Therefore he would make this Conclusion that God's Self-existence is a Contradiction I know it will be pretended that this is the Consequence only of the Bishops Notion of Eternity but it is plain that that Writer makes use of this Arguing to shake the belief of the Eternity and Self-Existence of the Allmighty and that will appear from what he further adds in way of Exception to what that Reverend Person saith afterwards concerning God's Eternity This Examinator talks of a false notion of Self-existence but doth not say what it is If I have mistaken the Considerer let him write plainer another time As to the Examinator's question How the Second and Third Persons can be Self-existent I answer They are Self-existent as they are eternally from the Self-same Deity Though according to the Nicene Creed Christ be God of God yet that doth not infring his Self-Existence because those words are not spoken of the Essence of Christ which is common to him with his Father but of his Personality He being the same with the Father as to the former hath his Existence of himself but differing from the Father as to the latter he is rightly said to be from him or of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity This is easily reconciled with what he saith an Other Bishop asserts if this Vnitarian hath not a mind to quarrel In the next Paragraph he is quite non-plus'd for I had charg'd the Sacinian Authors with their denial of God's foreknowing future Contingencies and consequently denying the Omniscience of God which is an inseparable Attribute of the Deity and he having nothing to reply to the purpose first tells us he is not concern'd in it p. 18 whereas every one knows that he being one of the Party is concern'd Secondly assoon as he had as it were renounced the Socinian doctrine by saying he was not Concern'd in it he presently owns it for Truth as those words import p. 18. to deny his foreknowledg of the certainty of that which is not certain c. which is as much as to say that there are some things that are Uncertain and therefore Unknowable and these God can have no knowledg of And yet thirdly he would seem to hint that it is a dishonourable thing to God those are his words that he should not have a foresight of these things Thus Confused is our Author which shews he is not fit to be an Examiner of other mens Writings when he can't write Consistently himself but in three or four lines hath as many Blunders In the next words and what follows he perfectly gives up the Cause p. 18. for I had laid this to the charge of the Racovians that they denied the Immensity or Omnipresence of God which is a Property or Perfection never to be disjoyn'd from the Deity whereupon he tamely acknowledges that Crellius and the rest of the Fraternity are of this perswasion Only because the Gentleman must be wagging his tongue he gives us a scrap out of a Latin Poet and just names a Greek Father who never said any thing to that matter and so we are rid of them But he comes on again and goes off assoon for he barely mentions the Spirituality of God which I had asserted to be another Divine Excellency and it is such an Attribute of God that we can't conceive of him without it and therefore it is made the short and comprehensive Definition of him that he is a Spirit Iohn 4. 24. In my Discourse which this Examinator calls in question I took notice that the Socinians denied this Property of the Deity which I justly tax'd as an Atheistick Tang and I think it was a mild term for it is a Rank Sign of a great tendency to Atheism to deny that God is a Spirit i. e. an Immaterial Incorporeal Being But our present Author resolves himself into the opinion of those modest Divines who by their Blushing can be no other than Socinus's Scholars who determine nothing about the Point which is as much as to say he and they deny it But you must know they are now a little upon their Credit this Gentleman who speaks in the name of the rest had before given up the Immensity and Omniscience of God and therefore it is high time now to be upon the Reserve and to pause a little that the world may not see that they reject All those Properties of the Deity which I mention'd But notwithstanding this cunning practice of theirs the world may see yea it cannot but plainly see that they deny every one of these Divine Attributes more or less and this particularly which I mention'd last viz. that God is a Spirit properly so call'd For whereas I quoted Socinus and Crellius their Grand Patriots to prove this denial this Writer takes no notice of my doing so which lets us see that the opinion of those Great Masters is humbly submitted to by all the rest So now I hope the Reader is convinc'd that I was not Vnjust to the Socinians that I did not highly injure them as they have cried out when I charg'd them with Atheism or a Strong Tendency to it in some Points I tax'd them with denying these four Attributes the Self-Existence the Omniscience the Omnipotence the Spirituality of God and lo this professed Son of Socinus who was chosen out with great deliberation and judgment without doubt from the rest of his brethren to undertake the Cause to refute what I had alledg'd against them and who questionless hath said all that he could in the Case lo I say this professed and known Writer of the Brotherhood confirms and ratifies what I have laid to their charge For he produces the words out of their own Author which I referr'd to whence it appears that he had a mind to distort the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester's words and to argue against the Self-Existence of God This Examinator without any more ado rejects the Second and third Attributes and by his boggling at the fourth we know what must be the fate of that Thus he and his fellow-Criminals being conscious to the truth and Justice of the Charge confess themselves Guilty They are so far from clearing themselves