Facto only Have we not reasonable grounds to suspect the Passive-Obedience-men of the Convocation to be such And perhaps our Author may have somewhat more incurr'd their Enmity by his being as I hear he is a de Jure Liege-man and did not join his Sufferage in that Decree This burning Decree of the Convocation of Oxford July 21. 83. brings fresh to my Mind the most unjust Expulsion of Mr. Parkinson from that University and consequently from his Fellowship in Lincoln-Colledg whereby and from his Pupils he receiv'd about 120 l. per Annum of all which he was depriv'd without any Trial about the very time of that Convocation and for holding as was pretended some of those Propositions condemned by that Decree and whilst he stood indicted for the same at the Assizes of Oxford where and at the King's-Bench Westminster he was forced to give attendance for about three Years And tho' he has been restor'd to the Liberty of the University by the late Vice-Chancellor now Bishop of Bristol yet to this Day he cannot procure restoration to his Fellowship much less reparation of his great Damages sustain'd in the space of full seven Years How does Dr. H 's Conscience suffer him to sleep while it is not done since he was the chief Agent in that Expulsion Let me enquire now how these Gentlemen-burners make good their Sentence That the Naked Gospel plucks up by the Roots the Primitive Doctrine once delivered to the Saints destroys the chief Mysteries of our Religion and not only denies but exposes to scorn that very Jesus Christ our Lord who bought us and who is God blessed for ever A heavy Charge indeed and which is to be abominated by all Christians But what shall we say of these Judges if they fail in their Proofs must they not fall under the Character of false Accusers and unjust Judges The Matters contain'd in the Book from first to last shew plainly that the Author is neither Arian nor Socinian for he is so far from denying even the Eternal Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ that he plainly enough confesses it but if he both confesses it and denies it he contradicts himself and cannot be said absolutely either to confess or deny it But that he confesses it and denies only the necessity of understanding and believing the manner of it appears in divers Passages which is one main distinction which the Learned Judges ought to have considered As 1. Chap. 5. pag. 24. I st Edit The same infinite absolute implicit Belief which is acknowledged due to God is also due to Christ Which could not be said by one that did not believe him an Infinite God Again 2. Chap. 6. pag. 36. Other Characters speak an unmeasurable Excellency but this the only begotten Son of God speaks an incommunicable One. And a few Lines after he addeth That the Divinity of our Lord maketh the Dignity of his Person unintelligible and for that very reason he is to be believed in with utmost confidence P. 37. Then consider 3. what he affirmeth Pag. 39. that our Saviour in answering the Jews who were offended at him for having stiled himself the Son of God did not upon so pressing occasion assert his right but abating so much as exceeded their comprehension speaks nothing of what he had been from Eternity in himself but what he was in relation to the World and in comparison with other Messengers of God to it Thus did he like Elijah contract himself to their Dimensions requiring only such a measure of Faith as was suitable to their Vnderstandings and his own Designs Here the Author saying that our Lord did not assert his Right must mean his Right to that Title which the Jews accus'd him of Blasphemy for usurping which was that he being a Man made himself God clearly supposes him to be God And again in saying he spake nothing of what he was from Eternity in himself He supposeth it was a Truth beyond controversy that he was from Eternity and that so much the more plainly because it comes as part of a Discourse which shews that our Lord did not assert his Right 4. What the Burners produce as Heretical in evidence of their Charge viz. That his Generation must needs be-so much above our Vnderstanding as the Nature of God is above our own may much more justly be produced in defence of the Author as a proof that he believed our Lord's Divinity than be objected as subverting the Faith of it Since therefore he acknowledged our Lord's Divinity for a Truth as we see the Propositions the Burners cite as denying it must be as clear as these or else the Author does not contradict himself but must be reckon'd Orthodox in the Faith For obscure Passages ought in reason to be explicated by those that are clear And then the Burners fall short in proving their heinous Charge and all the Fault of the Author must lie in his denying it to be a matter of necessary saving-Faith But the great Champions of the Catholick Doctrine were generally guilty of the same Heresy St. Hilary wrote no less than twelve Books concerning the Trinity yet in the close of the 10th hath these words Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam questiones vocat c. God doth not call us to a blessed Life by difficult Questions nor solicites us by a manifold kind of Eloquence the way of Eternity is plain and easy to us viz. To believe that God-raised Jesus from the Dead and to confess him our Lord. In which words we see not only in the present Question concerning our Lord's Person but in all others how little of mere Belief is required to Salvation Nor do we find the least Hint to the contrary in the History of those Times wherein the Controversy raged tho' they Persecuted one another they did not Damn one another they contended for their Opinions as for great Truths wherein our Lord's Honour was concern'd not as for Articles of Faith whereon the Believer's Salvation depended Sr. Chrysostom says All Necessaries are clear and manifest And Nazianzen after thirteen Years study calls them Fools who too curiously enquire into the Incarnation of our Lord. Yea and those who were so eager for condemning the Naked Gospel to the Flames cannot sure but think it more dishonourable to the Saviour of the World to believe he will damn any Man for failing of so difficult a Truth when he sincerely believes the clear Gospel than any other Error concerning the Divinity of his Person can be A second Distinction which the Author might juslly have expected from such Learned Persons was That the Question in debate was not concerning the Divinity or mere Humanity of our Lord's Person but concerning a Nicety so inconsiderable that neither the Emperor nor a Council could find the difference between the Nicene and Arian Confession And doubtless it must be something worse than Inadvertency that can blind any Man so far as to disable
him from discovering that from the beginning of the 7th Chapter to the 10th this Author speaketh only as a Commentator upon the. Letter of the great Emperor Constantine wherein he equally condemneth both Parties for troubling the Peace of his Empire with such a Question wherein it was not disputed whether Christ were God or not for therein both sides agreed but in what manner he was begotten or wherein he agreed or differ'd from the Father There is a Passage which I find in the last Impression which perhaps is not in many Hands and little notice taken of it in which the Author by closing that Discourse displayeth his meaning in it which though it be somewhat long I think fit to transcribe Pag 48 49. AND what is all this to BELIEVING IN CHRIST Yea what is it to the PERSON of Christ Had freedom from Persecution suffered a Controversy to have sprung three or four Ages before between some that then believed Christ to be God and others that believed Jesus to be the Christ but a Man born of Men as we heard from Justin Martyr the importance of such a Controversy would have justified the Heat wherewith it should be persecuted But here it was quite otherwise The Difference at first appeared very slight and afterward none at all For the Confession of Arius after his condemnation was so like the Nicene that neither the Emperor himself nor a Council found any defect in it The angry Bishop indeed found a word wanting but such a word as proved too unweildy even for those who would not dispence with it This word Arius omitted as no less needless than intractable But he and his followers acknowledged Christ to be the only begotten Son of God begotten before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God Was not this so believe in him Is it not enough to believe that as he created the World so he governeth it that as he promised everlasting Life to his Believers so he is able to perform it that he now seeth and will hereafter reward every one according to his Works Doth not this answer all the Designs of Faith Love Thankfulness Obedience c. Can none be Believers but Metaphysicians only Nor all they neither but only such as fully comprehend the new-coin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and can so nicely apply them to the Person of Christ as to salve all Difficulties The Parties themselves did not think so The leading Bishops in the midst of their Heats allowed Toleration to the Dissenters and all of both sides during the Persecution under Julian communicated in die same Churches and in all good Offices both of Devotion toward God and Charity toward each other they mutually comforted and strengthned one another in defence of the Christian Faith By this it appeareth they did not judg one another to be Infidels and consequently that the Faith to which Eternal Life is promised was not concern'd in the Controversy An Evidence concurring with greater to prove that the Creed which weareth the Name of Athanasius was not his Issue nor Contemporary And where is that Church-of England-Man who doth not so distinguish the Doctrines of that Creed from its Censures as to retain the former in their full import but pull out the String of the latter by such an Interpretation as leaves uncancell'd our Saviour's Patent of Eternal Life to whosoever believeth in him These are the words of the Author wherein he summeth up the Design of all he had said concerning Faith toward the Person of Christ and whereby are rendred inexcusable any that charge him with Arianism Socinianism or any other hard Character No! his Heresy lay not in the Book but the Conclusion The Conclusion was so unlucky as not only to contradict the Purposes but the very Speech of those Leaders of that Convocation In the days of Hen. 3. the Bishops moved the Temporal Lords to suit the Law of England to the Canon Law by legitimating Children born before Wedlock The Temporal Lords answered Nolumus Lâ—ges Augliae mutari quia huc usque usu approbatae sunt The former half of these words the Noble Bishop of London took for the Motto of his Standard wherein there was neither need nor place for the later half and it is well known who with equal Wit Wisdom and Gratitude threw it in his Face in that Convocation Could any thing more provoke such a Man's spleen than a Discourse so cross both to the Determination and the Reason as for this very Reason to prove a Change ought to be made because Experience had proved those Laws unhappy in succeeding Ages which were wisely and charitably instituted for that Age wherein they were first established This was an Affront never to be digested but for its sake the whole Book must be condemned and the Author prosecuted From this general Apology for the Author's Innocency I will now proceed to take a short view of the particular Propositions whereby the Burners prove the equity of their Sentence and Execution ' That Mahomet profess'd all the Articles of the Christian Faith Answ By the first step we may see whither they are going They quote the Words of the Author as the Devil did Scripture by halves Had they gone on as a Faithful Witness should do it must plainly appear that the Author meant not to equal Mahomet's Belief with the Christians but to shew the Design and Success of his Pretences For thus he proceeds ' Mahomet profest all the Articles of the Christian Faith and declared himself not an Apostate but Reformer pretending to purify it from the Corruption wherewith it had be'n defiled and perfect it with Additionals he framed such a Jargon as appeared most serviceable to his Ends and most suitable to his Lust And sure their Malice must have be'n too hard for their Memory if they had forgotten what had be'n said ' That the Author of the Alcoran was no other than a leud brain-sick Scoundrel and his Doctrines as far as they are his no better than extravagant Whimsies or leud Panders to Lust And again that the Asian Churches had their Candlestick removed by the Sword of a base Slave and his few Followers and by Doctrines weak as That Sword when first unsheathed and leud as those Rogues that managed it But alas this would have spoil'd the first most Heretical and Impious Proposition and the Author must have scap't without that severe Character of being a Friend to Mahomet and a Favourer of the Alcoran which any one will think him to be with a Witness who shall read this so just Decree and never view the. Book it self Do you not blush Sir at the Ingenuity of that Person who drew out this abominable Proposition And are you not almost afraid that the Learned Condemners took it upon trust without too laborious an Examination And so much for this strong firm and laudable Foundation Let us proceed to the rest
of the Blasphemies ' Pref. Whether Mahomet or Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel is not so plain by the Light of Scripture as it is by that of Experience that the later gave Occasion Encouragement and Advantage to the former For when by nice and hot Disputes especially concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the Minds of the whole People had bin long confounded and by the then late Establishment of Image-Worship the Scandal was encreased so that to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-Worship did of Idolatry Then was there a tempting opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a Reformer of such Corruptions as were both too gross to be Justified and too visible to be Denied Answ The Christian Doctors had not indeed in Mahomet's Time so far corrupted the Gospel as they have done since But their then late establishment of Image-Worship gave such scandal to the vulgar rude Arabians that the Idolatry which was visible therein made them infer that those who were so guilty thereof were no less guilty of Polytheism in the Doctrine of the Trinity which to this Day they still believe But where doth the denial of Christ's God-head appear in all this ' Cap. 7. pag. 40. The great Question concerning the God-Head of Christ is 1. Impertinent to our Lord's Design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplators own purpose 3. Dangerous Answ The great Question was not concerning the Godhead of Christ for therein both Parties agreed but concerning the Eternity of his Godhead They both held he was before the World and made the World Judges in Criminal Matters should not corrupt the Evidence And whatever the Author speaketh of that Question is by way of Gloss upon the Great Constantine's Letter never yet judged Heretical as I observ'd before Is here a Tittle of the Author 's denying the Godhead of Christ ' Cap. 8. pag. 46. Two Evangelists trace our Lord's Genealogy but as they derive it not from his real but supposed Father so do they take two several ways not to satisfy but to amuse us What is this but to admonish us against Curiosity The Pedigree of his Flesh might easily have bin either cleared or unmentioned â—ad the Evangelists bin wholly silent concerning it We had less wondred but that they should profess to instruct us yet doubly disappoint us first by deriving it from a wrong Father and then by distracting us between two ways what is this but to verify the Propher's Description Who shall declare his Generation and what doth this so careful concealment of his Generation according to his Humane Nature signify more plainly than a warning against searching after the Eternal Generation of his Divinity If it were needless and therefore left impossible to prove him derived from David which was one of his most revealed Characters How can it be otherwise to understand that Generation of his which must needs be so much the more above our Understanding as the Nature of God is above our own Answ Matter of Fact is plain Our Bibles shew us that the two Evangelists derive our Lord's Pedigree from his reputed Father and that they proceed therein two several ways The Inference is innocent What doth this so careful concealment of his Generation according to his Humane Nature signify more plainly than a warning against searching after the eternal Generation of his Divinity which must be so much the more above our understandings as the Nature of God is above our own Here again the eternal Generation of his Divinity is plainly suppos'd so far are they from proving the denial of it ' Pag. 48. And might not a Heathen at this rate justify Polytheism provided his Gods disagreed not amongst themselves The Schoolmen therefore will not stand to this State of the Question but distinguish between Person and Suppositum rationale which yet they cannot so do as to satisfy themselves and therefore shelter themselves in their impregnable Fort Mystery and thence thunder upon the Adversaries both of this and of another no less beloved Mystery For they make this their Cock-argument for Transubstantiation That since the Scripture is no less express for the One than the Other and the Contradictions no less gross in the One than in the Other therefore we must embrace the One as well as the Other 'To this Objection of the Romanists and to others of the Vnitaries we have found an Answer That we must not infer from our Own Nature to God's for that Ours is finite and God's is infinite Three Persons among us are Three Men because they agree in one Common Nature but the Divine Nature is not a Common One but a Singular and therefore Three Persons do not make Three Gods If you understand not this you must not wonder or at least you must not Gainsay it for it is a Mystery which Reason may not pretend to fathom Answ This Censurer understood well how to stop short for had he gone one Line further he had discovered the Innocency of the Author's Intentions the Words are Why if it be a Mystery and must still be so to what purpose do we enquire into it or dispute concerning it which plainly shew he did not intend either to Assert or Deny either side of the Question but set aside the whole as not to be Understood and therefore not to be Disputed These Words are not in the Author's Second Impression so unwilling was he it seems to displease that he was at a great charge to have these and other things left out But how justifiable are they even in the first for they follow Athanasius's way of stating the Trinity which was That Peter James and John are not three Men if they be of one Mind because then they are one in the Lord. And doth it not thence clearly follow that a Heathen might at the same rate justify Polytheism provided his Gods disagreed not among themselves But who knows not that the Schoolmen and Moderns do generally as the Author says reject that way of Arguing as indeed introducing three Gods one in specie but three in number ' Pag. 51. Thus have we pointed and only pointed at some of the many intangling Questions which puzzeled and divided the subtilest Wits of several Ages and were at last decided by no other Evidence but of Imperial and Papal Authority sufficient to silence Disputes but not stablish Truth And who is he that is not discouraged from giving a confident Assent to what is this way obtruded upon his Belief Answ This is not in the Second Impression if it were where is the Heresy of it Matter of Fact appears in the Historians and the Inference Who is he that is not discouraged from giving a confident assent to what is this way obtruded upon his Belief What consisidering Man would not ask the fame Question ' Cap. 9. pag. 53. I. There is