them that believed not Compare Psal 45. v. 6 7. with Heb. 1.8 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter He whose Throne is for ever and ever is God but Christ's Throne is for ever and ever therefore he is God Both these Propositions are express Scripture The next Scripture shall be that of Isai 7.14 A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Emanuel compared with Mat. 1.23 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken viz. Isai 7.14 by the Prophet saying Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emanuel There is an Objection cast in our way which must be removed before we proceed Object It is said Matth. 1.21 The Angel of the Lord which appeard to Joseph told him that he should call his name Jesus How then was this of the Prophet fulfilled They shall call his name Emanuel Ans That Names are of two sorts some for distinction of Persons as proper Names others serve for Description of the Nature or Offices of a Person in the first respect he is called Jesus a Saviour there being no other Saviour but he for there is no other name given to man whereby he may be saved The other of Emanuel describes his Nature what he should be viz. God with us God manifested in the flesh So the same Prophet Isai 9.6 His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor c. And Jer. 23.6 This is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness And Luke 1.35 That which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God And it is observed that both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New do signify to be as well as to be called Justin Martyr Tertullian and other Ancients solved this Objection made by the Jews Venit Emanuel quia venit quod Emanuel significat The Emanuel is come because he is come who was signified by that name God with us not only to reconcile us to God but to be God Incarnate The Argument then is this Emanuel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in the Divine Essence Christ is Emanuel therefore he is God in the Divine Essence That the word God is to be understood of the most High God the Socinians grant But Crellius objects that the word est should be added and so the meaning is God is with us But when St. Matthew expounds the name without that Addition there is great Reason to reject it and if that had been the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the name as given by the Prophet St. Matthew would not have omitted it it being of great concern to the Glory of God and the Instruction of the Church The meaning of the Name therefore is not God is with us i. e. as says Crellius to help and assist us but Christ is God with us for the name Emanuel being put into English and applyed unto Christ it will appear whether St. Matthew or Crellius gives the best Interpretation This is St. Matthew's sence Christ is God with us i. e. God and Man And this is Crellius his Nonsence Christ God with Man is Is not this to add to and alter the sence of the Scripture Malach. 3.1 compared with Matth. 11.10 Behold I send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple This is he saith St. Matthew of whom it is written Behold I send my Messenger before thy face c. It is agreed that John the Baptist was this Messenger spoken of and the Argument is this He before whom John Baptist was to be sent to prepare his way is the God of Israel but Christ is he before whom John Baptist was to be sent c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is proved by Malachy where he that speaks is called the God of Israel and Lord of Hosts This Socinus grants The second Proposition is proved by St. Matthew applying it to Christ This is he of whom it is written c. The Sum of what is objected to this Argument is That the Text in Malachy is corrupted and instead of reading He shall prepare the way before me it should be read He shall prepare the way before thee But then how comes it to pass that no one Copy of that of Malachy or this in St. Matthew reads otherwise than we do He will not say they are all corrupted and we say none are corrupted But they ask How is it that what Malachy reads in the first Person He shall prepare the way before me Christ renders in the second Person He shall prepare the way before thee Ans This Objection will improve our Argument for when Malachy says He shall prepare the way before me which is spoken of the God of Israel and our Saviour renders it He shall prepare the way before thee and applys it to himself this proves that Christ was that God of Israel who spake in Malachy and so proves the Identity of the Essence of God the Father and the Son Moreover by comparing this place of Malachy with the Interpretation which our Saviour gives of it in St. Matthew we infer from Malachy the Unity of the Essence of the God of Israel and Christ and from that in Matthew we learn a distinction of Persons which had not been so intelligible if Christ had not changed the first Person or the word my into the second Person or the word thy in St. Matth. Deut. 6.13 compared with Matth. 4.10 the words are the same Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The Argument is this He that is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship is the God of Israel Christ is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is express Scripture the second is granted by the Socinians therefore the Conclusion is undeniable Crellius when he would prove that Christ is not the true God from Joh. 20. This is life eternal to know thee only the â—rue God says That the word only excludes all others from being the true God Schichtingius is of another mind and says That this particle only when it is spoken of God doth not exclude those that depend on God in the thing spoken of Now if Crellius speaks the truth then Christ is not to be worshipped because the word only excludes him If Schichtingius speaks the truth then Christ may be the true God because the word only doth not exclude him Volkelius says That seeing Christ is subordinate to God in worshipping of Christ we worship God who hath given him so great Power and Dignity Ans This is against the Command that excludes all others for if Christ be a Man wholly distinguished
Reason doth correct as an Oar in the Water seems broken to the view of the eye which Reason tells us is still strait and sound and Reason demonstrates the Sun to be more than Two hundred times greater than the Globe of the Earth though to our sight it appear not above four or five Foot in diameter Why may not the eye of Faith as much excel that of Reason as that of Reason doth the corporeal sence As for the Quotations of Volkelius from Rom. 12.1 Of our reasonable service it doth not prove that Evangelical Worship as prescribed ought to be measured by human Reason but implies that such Worship is just and reasonable as well as spiritual in opposition to the carnal Worship under the Law where Sheep and Doves were offered to God which were unreasonable Creatures and dead Sacrifices whereas now we are to offer up ourselves a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God in which respect it is called a reasonable Service The Platonists were Masters of as much Natural Reason as the Socinians and if they on I know not what Tradition and Enquiry did believe a plurality of Persons in the Godhead it is strange that the Socinians by the help of the Scripture should not yield their assent The Platonists had no temptation nor interest to lead them to the Notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but perhaps some Tradition from the Jews which their Reason judged probable St. Basil on the words of St. John 1.1 In the beginning was the word says I have known many that had not the knowledge of the Scripture to magnifie this Truth St. Aug. l. 10. c. 29. de Civitate Dei speaks of a Platonist that was wont to say That the beginning of St. John 's Gospel whom yet he counted a Barbarian was worthy to be written in Letters of Gold and preached in the greatest Congregations That in many Books of the Platonists mention was made of God and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Son whom Zenon stiled the Maker of the World And Numenius calls God Creantis Dei Patrem The Father of that God that created the World And what is yet more to be admired some Platonists reckoned the Word or Reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the beginning to be with God and to be God by whom was made whatever was made that he descended into a Body and put on Flesh but even then manifested the Dignity of his Nature Of these we may say That they were Naturaliter Christiani as Tertullian doth And they spake the same sense though not with the same affection for the Platonists speak of Three Principles the First they call the Being the Second Reason the Third the Soul of the World The Being begets Reason not by a Decree or Act of Will but by Nature as Fire begets Heat and Light and Reason produceth the Soul of the World Platinus says The Father and Reason are One and the same Being coexistent and not forsaking each other The Enneads wherein he speaks this is entituled Concerning the Three Hypostases Amelius another Platonick says according to that of St. John That Plato taught That in the beginning was Reason and Reason was with God and was God that she made all Things and was the Light of Man Justin Martyr says That Christ was known in part to Socrates under the Notion of Reason which foretold things future and taking the same Infirmities as we hath instructed us by himself And that the Opinions of Plato are not very remote from those which we have of Christ St. Augustine agrees with him that changing a few Words and Sentences they would become Christians as some of the later Platonicks have done And Tertullian says That when the Christians say that God made the World by his Reason they speak after the manner of the Sage Heathen Tertul. Apology Now if the Heathen saw so much by whatever means as to give their assent to a plurality of Hypostases or Personalities in the Godhead our Masters of Reason the Socinians seem to contradict the wiser sort of Philosophers as well as the generality of Christians in their Opinions Those that write the History of the Pagans in America do assure us that among some of them there are Notions of the Trinity still preserved and it is supposed that by Tradition from the Ancient Jews and Chaldeans in whose Cabala there were some dark Speeches concerning the Trinity which though they were careful not to make known to the Heathen yet some Notions of it were entertained and spread abroad into the World Having shewn in what sence the Ancient Greek Philosophers understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may very much confirm the sence of St. John if it appear that among the Jews the same signification was familiarly received and this will appear from the Targum where in Expounding the 110th Psalm these words The Lord said to my Lord sit thou c. they read The Lord said to his Word which Targum was written about the same time when the Gospel of St. John was and Philo who lived about the same time calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest agreeably to what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of our Saviour says chap. 4.12 For the word of God is quick and powerful and to explain what he meant he adds Seeing therefore we have a great High Priest passed into the heavens c. In this sence the Hellenists used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius says That the Ancient Jews and Christians teach That when an Angel in the Old Testament is called Jehova it was not a meer Angel but cui ad fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such appearances we often read of in the Old Testament So that the Notion of the Messias did pass among the Jews for the Son of God under the Name of the Word of God The Gnosticks also and Cerinthus used it in the same sence which gave occasion to St. John to describe our Saviour by that Word which was left known in those days and to assert the Divinity of our Saviour under that Word which he doth so effectually that the Socinians finding they could not object against it have thought on a New Exposition and a New Creation made by this Word which as it hath no Foundation being ex nihilo so it resolves into nothing but the Word of God shall endure for ever And this is his Name The Word of God Rev. 19. So the Syriack Translators of St. John's Gospel gives it this Preface In the Name of our Lord and of our God Jesus Christ and the like to the other Gospels and Epistles and they celebrate a Festival in commemoration of the Mother of God Because Philo was a Jew and one well skilled in the Greek as well as the Hebrew Idioms which were in use about our Saviour's time it is worth our observation how he speaks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
was apparently designed by the Compilers for some special use to fence the Catholick Faith from the Corruptions Depravations Doubtings and Contradictions of Hereticks as in the Nicene Creed the Oneness of our Lord Jesus Christ was added when the Arians opposed the Apostolick Tradition and by corrupting detected the words of Scripture to their sence which Dr. H. shews more largely in his Note on 1 Joh. 5.7 and of such Additions he says That when the Church hath thought meet to erect an additional Bulwark against Hereticks such as reject them may be deemed to side with those Hereticks p. 86. And this is the summ of what he says concerning the Athanasian Creed the Doctrine whereof he says is well nigh all to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons against those Hereticks who had brought Novel Propositions into the Church of which Doctrinal part he says that Athanasius being only a Father of the Church they were not necessary to be explicitely acknowledged nor absolutely imposed on any but such as were Members of some Church that had actually received Athanasius's Explication or than it appeared concordant with the more authentick universal Confessions as every Doctrinal Proposition of it will be found to do As for the Damnatory Sentences Dr. Ham. supposeth them to be interpreted in opposition to those Heresies that had invaded the Church not that it defined it to be a damnable sin to fail in understanding or believing the full matter of any of those Explications Dr. Ham. having as a wise Master Builder laid this Foundation shews how necessary it is for the end of building on it a holy Life and an uniform universal Obedience to the Commands of Christ in opposition to Idolatry Formality Hypocrisie and to Sacriledge Profaneness and Impiety as also to improve the Vertues of Obedience to Superiours Charity to all Mankind Purity of Flesh and Spirit Contentedness and taking up the Cross and lastly how useful it is to confute false Doctrines 1. Of the Romanists as Penances Indulgences of Supererrogating Merits of Attrition improved into Contrition by the Priest's aid without change of Life Dispensableness of Oaths Arts of Equivocation Purgatory Cessation of Allegiance and especially of Infallibility 2ly Of the Solifidians and Fiduciaries the Predestinarians and irrespective Decrees of Election and Reprobation of the Divine Prescience against the Socinians who deny that God foresees all things and though they grant his Omnipresence and Omnipotence yet question the infinity of his Science which is apparently false as appears by God's Predictions to the Prophets When I considered the Writings of both these Doctors their Foundations and Superstructures it brought to my mind those two sorts of Builders and Building mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 7. the one built on that approved Rock of St. Peter 's Confession the other on that Sand whereon Arius Socinus and that Man of an ominous Name Sandius pitcht their Tabernacles the one stands firm tho' for 1600 Years the Rain descended Flouds came and the Wind blew on it the other tho' like the Walls of Jerusalem it hath been often attempted to be fastned hath still been blown down and may the Fall of it be still great P. 41. c. 2. Our Doctor says If the Relation between the written Word and rational Consequence be so remote as none but a skilful Herald can derive its Pedigree then is a good Christian no more obliged to believe such an Inference than is every good Subject to be a good Herald As if the Ignorant were no ways obliged to follow the Directions of the wise and good Men or as if Subjects were not bound to obey those Laws whereof they cannot ken those Reasons which the wise and consulting Legislators on good Reasons have established for their Security What tho' the Papists do most absurdly infer from Christ's Command to St. Peter to feed his Lambs that all those Popes which pretend to be his Successors are thereby commissioned to Rule and Govern all Nations and Persons in all Ages Cannot so enquiring a Person as the Doctor or one that is more or one that is less rational from such Scriptural premises as God was made Flesh Christ is God over all equal and one with his Father with undeniable Reason infer as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath done That he is the Eternal Son of God But such an Inference is so contrary to the Socinian's Reason that it is equally rejected with contempt and derision as Popish Impositions and by the Doctor numbred among them But Bernardus non videt omnia He undertakes therefore to bless the World with such a description of them that it shall be as easie to know them without pains or art as it was for the meanest Beggar in the street to understand whom King Ahasuerus would Honour when he caused Mordecai in Royal Manner to be publickly honoured and by Proclamation enjoyned the People to bow the Knee as he past by them The Qualifications for Matter of Faith he says must be these 1. It must be easie to be understood by the meanest capacity and therefore he rejects any thing that is called a Mystery though God manifested in the Flesh be so called by the Apostle yea though the same Mystery be implied in that very Scripture which he quotes to prove his assertion viz. Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus i. e. that Jesus is the Lord which no man can say but by the Holy Ghost i. e. not by a natural Faith but by a supernatural Revelation such as our Saviour says Flesh and blood hath not revealed And it is observable that though in the Title of this Chapter he mentioneth the Word as well as the Matter to be believed yet he makes no mention of the Word by which the Person of our Saviour is generally understood so that Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ the Foundation of our Faith is excluded from being the Object of our belief for he writes the WORD in a larger Character which might induce the Reader to believe that he meant as St. John 1.1 The Son of God which is the adequate Object of Christian Faith but speaks nothing of him in all that Chapter 2ly He says It must be an express Word of God This no Protestant denieth but they do generally urge it against the Papists who teach as necessary Articles of Faith the Commandments of Men And may we not conclude by this Position that they who oppugne such a Fundamental to which Eternal Life is promised may come short of Salvation Christ saith He that believes and is baptized this is but one entire proposition as our Author observes that it is not only he that believes but he that believes and is baptized and Salvation cannot belong to them that put asunder what Christ hath joyned as the Socinians do in the Case of Baptism which they call only a Rite and Ceremony 3ly He says It must be expresly honoured with
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
answered Our Doctor mentions it for another reason viz. how any Church dare challenge or any Man dares pay that Faith to any yea all the Creatures in Heaven and Earth which is due to God only And on the Socinian and Arian supposition that Christ is a Creature there is no more Faith or Obedience due to him than to other Messengers of God but we must seek for Salvation by a Natural Religion and then blind as we are by Nature and having but blind Guides we may soon fall into the Ditch For the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit flesh and bloud cannot reveal them nor can any man say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost That this seems to be the Socinian sence of the Author is probable from the following words Those who require implicit Faith on any other authority so as to contradict reason give God the lye making him contradict himself for Reason is no less the word of God than is the Scripture So that if the Doctrines of the Gospel contradict the Reason of Arians and Socinians they are not to be received for therefore only are we to believe the Scripture because we are by plain Reason convinced that it is the Word of God But what if some Socinians be tainted with Quakerism and their Reason tells them the Gospel is not the Word of God but that Word is written in their Hearts and the Light within them is the only Word of God and not the Word incarnate or that which is written with Pen and Inke that is in our Doctor 's Opinion the Natural Religion for though the evidence we have that what is offered us for the Word of God is really such to this we must pay neither more nor less belief than Reason will prove due p. 18. col 2. P. 19. c. 2. The Doctor speaking of Belief says thus The same Natural Religion which claimed it as due to God forbad to pay it to any Creature upon the former account there was no need of an express Precept and upon the later there was the greatest need not only of an express Command but such repeated Importunities as might out voice both Reason when it should decry such a Command and Interest when it should rebel against convinced Reason both whereof concurred against the belief which our Lord required The sence of this Paragraph seems to be this That as the Faith which Natural Religion claims as due to God needed no express Precept so Natural Religion forbidding to pay Faith to any Creature there was the greatest need not only of an express Command but repeated Importunities to pay it to Christ such as might out-voice both Reason and Interest seeing they both concurred against the belief which our Lord required I wish the Doctor would give a more rational inference from these words then this that both Natural Religion Reason and Interest do forbid to pay Faith to Christ as forbidding to pay it to a Creature for he saith they concur against the belief which our Lord required If the Doctor by implicit Faith means more particularly a readiness to believe as Articles of Faith and as necessary to Salvation whatever Propositions are imposed on him by his Superiors he well knows we have no such Custom in the Church of England we call no Man on Earth our Master or Law-giver in Matters of Faith He that advanceth his own Reason which is often against and then it must be above Scripture he is in as bad a condition as the most bigotted Papist for he makes himself and all his Faculties and Reasonings as Infallible as they believe the Pope to be Chap. 5. The Contents of this Chapter is thus express'd Why Faith under the Gospel maketh a greater figure than under the Law This state of the Question he presently alters and makes it his business to shew That when our Saviour first claimed the publick profession of Faith in him there were extraordinary reasons for his Importunity and Promises some whereof in these days when the Christian Religion hath been long established have lost their influence and by consequence the importunity of those Precepts and the influence of those Promises do now cease These extraordinary Reasons viz. for professing Faith in Christ he draws from 1. The Difficulty and 2. the Danger of professing Faith in Christ and 3. the Necessity of it All which are readily granted viz. That though it were both difficult and dangerous yet it was necessary that the Disciples of Christ should publickly own Faith in him but then the Inference which he makes is not conclusive p. 23. col 1. viz. Now that our Education makes it as difficult and our Laws as dangerous to deny Christ as it was then to confess him and consequently what extraordinary merit Faith might draw from those Topicks must now be lowered and so Faith will appear a common Grace worthy of no greater than common rewards Is false for as he confesseth though in extraordinary respects that necessity be now abated yet there is a permament necessity from the influence which Faith alway hath on the action of Believers because as he says The Christian is alway a Souldier and must fight against all kinds of Enemies to Christ's Kingdom not only Flesh and Bloud but spiritual Wickedness and whatever would not have the Lord rule over them He must follow the Captain of his Salvation who was made perfect by Sufferings and when tempted he must walk in the steps of his Father Abraham sacrifice his Lusts though no less dear than was his Isaac So that Faith must be habitually the same and therefore needs the same encouragements now as it did when it was first required And I see no great need of that which he so carefully requires that we must distinguish the times for we are still under those later times which St. Paul calls perillous wherein we shall meet with divers Tryals and Temptation and therefore need the whole Armor of God c. And we still need the same degrees of Faith to overcome the World i. e. The lust of the Flesh the lust of the Eyes and the pride of Life To this great Work he says Christ came furnished with no other power but of working Miracles but the Scripture tells us of other powers for St. John says Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ He had the power to confer Grace to give Repentance and Remission of Sins to give Faith and to increase it to open the eyes of their Understandings and turn them from Darkness unto Light and from the power of Satan to God without which powers that of working Miracles was insufficient for we read of many that wrought Miracles in Christ's name and yet had no saving Faith and a Heathen may have a Natural Faith and Moral Vertues and yet come short of Salvation He adds in the conclusion of this Chapter That if we believe him i. e. Christ to require Faith for any other
the promise of Eternal Life to the Believer and therefore he says p. 42. Col. 2. Whoever ascribes it to any other Doctrine however true however revealed makes himself equal to Christ in Authority and superiour in Faithfulness If then that Scripture of our Saviour This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 20.31 And 1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 St. Augustine reads the Text thus To know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God and so doth St. Chrysostom Now if I say Eternal Life be appropriate to this knowledge that Christ is the true God then it is a fundamental Article of Faith P. 43. There can be no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts concerning Matters of Faith saith the Doctor How then comes it to pass that there are so many Controversies concerning Matters of Faith and that each Party denies Salvation to their Adversaries that differ from them His appeal to natural Faith will never be able to determine the Controversies that are yet undecided concerning such Fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to Salvation Socinus de Adoratione Christi says Bonas rationes rectas ex verbo dei consecutiones in sacris disputationibus aspernare nec admittere velle hominis est suae causae parum fidentis He says 3. We need not ought not to be uncharitable to any who differ from us in other Doctrines to the belief whereof the Promise is not appropriate But is Eternal Life any where promised to those that believe that Jesus Christ was only a Creature and a meer Man Can we hope for Salvation without satisfaction to the Divine Justice or can we make satisfaction Is it not good Divinity to say there is no Salvation but in the Name and through the Merits of Jesus Christ who died for our Sins and rose again for our Justification I have shewn you how the Doctor would interpret this latter Scripture Rom. 4. ult Commodius interpretationis as they call them there but if their little Criticisms and false Punctations should be admitted the Scriptures would indeed be made as he says A Nose of Wax witness their interpretation of John 8.58 Before Abraham was I am i. e. say they Before Abraham was made the Father of the Faithful and of many Nations that were converted by the preaching of the Gospel I am viz. the Light of the World So Eniedinus renders the Confession of St. Thomas as an Exclamation directed to God the Father O my Lord and my God as saith he we are wont to do when we behold any strange sight And Christ's words to the Thief Luke 23.43 are thus pointed I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise viz. When I shall come to Judgement Thus Francis David on the words of St. Stephen Act. 7.59 makes this Comment O God the Father who art the Lord of Jesus receive my Soul In this ch p. 44. c. 2. the Doctor says that the Remission which the prophets promised reached only to temporal punishments but that by Christ to eternal life How then can a natural Faith secure us of Life eternal when that Faith though greatly improved by the Prophets could not do it Ch. 11. in this Chapter he revives and pleads for another Socinian Tenet for the Resurrection not of the same but another Body He propounds the Question thus Whether any Promise doth necessarily import a restitution of the same numerical Matter and undertakes to prove That it is more honourable to God and more serviceable to the Design of the Gospel to believe the contrary But First This is contrary to the Grammatical Signification of the Word and to the Scripture by him quoted viz. That God gives to every seed his own Body And Ruffinus mentions the word Hujus the Resurrection of this Body which though it shall have a kind of Transfiguration by substraction of the old earthly Qualities and the addition of such as are new and heavenly yet the subject shall continue the same which St. Paul means 1 Cor. 15.53 This corruptible shall put on incorruption that as we have born the image of the earthly we may bear the image of the heavenly and as Job says With these eyes see God Job 19.25 And the Justice of God requires this that as the Faithful have born the Marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in their Bodies wherein they were Partakers of the Sufferings of Christ and were consecrated to him as the Temples of the Holy Ghost may partake of the Reward and Crown of Glory in the same Bodies What he says of our being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves as well that we shall have no Bodies as that we shall not have the same The change that shall be made in our vile Bodies doth not alter the form of our Bodies no more than it doth the Body of Christ which though it be now a glorious Body yet is still the same numerical Body and to call that a Load of Carion which the Apostle calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost is not becoming a Christian Doctor As we believe therefore that the same Body our Saviour which suffered is now glorified and that the same Bodies that remain to the last day shall be taken up to meet the Lord in the Air shall be the same Bodies that shall be ever with the Lord. And as we believe that Christ arose from the Grave in the same Body wherein he died so we believe that he carried the same into the heavenly Sanctuary and shall come at last in the same Body to judge both the Quick and Dead that all Eyes may look on their Crucified Saviour and unless it shall be the same Body it cannot properly be called a Resurrection And no doubt but our Resurrection shall be conform with that of Christ's as the Apostle intimates Rom. 8.11 He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies To this purpose St. Augustine Epl. 57. That as Christ glorified his own Body but destroyed not its nature so will he give Glory to our Bodies but not take away the nature of them Nor indeed do other qualities any more alter the nature of our Bodies than of our Souls which for substance shall be the same But lastly if this Enquiry be a matter of Curiosity not of Faith why doth he oppose the Doctrine so long received in the Church to bring in a Socinian Tenet And now p. 50. c. 1. he gives us the Socinian Scheme of the Naked Gospel such as Socinus Crellius Sclichtingius Smalcius and the whole Tribe have fancied and published to the World before him That its business was to reduce the Jews from their Bondage under the Law of Moses and the Gentiles from their worse bondage under the Worship of Devils to the
from the Father by nature if he be a Creature though honoured with the name of God as others have been this Precept forbids us to worship him as much as to worship any other Creature That which they farther object That this Precept belongs to the Old Testament and was given before Christ had a being is absurd for if there be any Moral Precepts of perpetual Obligation this is one besides when Christ used this Precept he was then in being and by a Voice from Heaven was proclaimed to be the Son of God So that the Socinians must wholly deny Divine Worship to Christ or else are guilty of Idolatry in worshipping a Creature The like Argument we have Isa 42.8 where God declares That he will not give his glory to another i. e. the Praise Adoration and Worship which is due to him alone may not be given to any other Angels or Men. The Argument is this God will not give his Glory or Divine Worship to another but he hath given it to Christ therefore Christ is not another To this they say That God intended by this Declaration to exclude Graven Images which are immediately expressed Neither my praise to graven Images he doth not say He will not give it to any who have their dependance on him and are subordinate to him As if the word another did exclude only Graven Images or as if all other things had not their dependance on him which yet are all excluded And it is observable that in this Chapter mention is made of Christ so v. 6. I the Lord have called thee in righteousness and will hold thy hand and keep thee and give thee for a covenant to the people a light to the Gentiles this is spoken of Christ Luke 2.32 To open the blind Eyes to bring out the Prisoners from the Prison and them that sit in Darkness out of the Prison-house see Luke 4.18 So after the Text Behold I declare new things viz. by Christ the word And v. 13. The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man he shall prevail against his enemies All this the Gospel shews was performed by Christ now this Glory and Worship being given to Christ it follows that he also is the Jehovah the God of Israel Isa 45.23 compared with Rom. 14.10 Look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the earth for I am God and there is none else Unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear this is applied to Christ Rom. 14.11 We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ for it is written As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God Which plainly infers that Christ is that God Psal 102.25 c. compared with Heb. 1. The Apostle distinguisheth between holy Men that spake and the Son of God the Psalmist says Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth which the Apostle applys to Christ therefore he is that God And to that Son it is that it is said Thou Lord hast laid the foundations of the earth c. I have seen an ancient Saxon Manuscript now in Print which read in the fourth Commandment Jesus Christ made the Heavens and the Earth Psal 97.7 compared with Heb. 1.6 The Psalmist's words are Worship him all ye God or Angels so Elobim signifies The Argument is He whom all the Angels are commanded to Worship in this Psalm is the God of Israel Christ is he whom the Angels are there commanded to worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is in the Psalm which speaketh of the Lord of the whole Earth so the God of Israel is often stiled Jos 3.11 Zach. 4.14 Mich. 4.13 The second Proposition is evident in Hebr. 1. where this Worship is applyed to Christ Let all the Angels of God worship him A Question here is raised Whether the words of the Psalmist and the Author to the Hebrews speak of the same Person or of another If of the same then is that Person Jehovah the Supreme God if of another then it is a false Exposition when that which is spoken of one Person in the Psalm by the Holy Spirit is applyed to another by Men. He therefore whom the Angels are to worship is the only begotten Son of God and Jehovah the Lord of the whole Earth for to this purpose is the Psalmist quoted to prove that Christ is to be worshipped by the very Angels which could not be to the purpose if he were not the same that is spoken of in that Psalm viz. The most high God Psal 68.18 compared with Eph 4.8 Thou hast ascended on high thou hast led captivity captive and received gifts for men Which the Psalmist speaks of God and the Apostle applys to Christ therefore he is God Psal 24.1 compared with 1 Cor. 10.26 He whose is the earth and the fulness thereof is the great Jehovah but of Christ it is said His is the earth and the fulness thereof therefore he is the Lord Jehovah The name Jehovah is in the Text of the Psalmist which proves the first Proposition and in the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. this is applyed to Christ who is particularly denoted by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the New Testament and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 8.6 and Chap. 12.5 Eph. 4.5 And the Arians grant that he was the Creator of all things and therefore the Earth and the Fulness thereof belongs to him he therefore is the Jehovah or Supreme God Isa 35.4 compared with Matth. 11.5 The Prophet says Your God shall come and save you then shall the eyes of the blind be opened This Prophesy was fulfilled by our Saviour Mat. 11.5 whence the Argument is thus formed That God who at his coming was to open the eyes of the Blind c. was the God of Israel Christ is that God who at his coming did open the eyes c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel Note That by your God is meant the God promised to Israel the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of him was the question Art thou he that should come v. 3. Isa 8.13 compared with Rom. 9.30 and 1 Pet. 2.3 The words are Sanctify the Lord God of Hosts himself c. The Argument is thus He that should be a Stone of Stumbling and a Rock of Offence is the Supreme God but Christ is that Rock and Stone c. Isa 4.3.5.10 compared with Matth. 3.3.5.14 and 1 Pet. 1.24 The words are The voice of one crying in the wilderness This Cryer was John Baptist Matth. 3.3 and he pointed to that Lord whose ways he was to prepare by preaching the Doctrine of Repentance and that Lord was Christ to whom St. John Baptist bore witness This is the Lamb of God In Isa 4. v. 5. The glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it This was fulfilled Joh. 1.14 The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory
And John 2.11 He manifested his glory and his Disciples believed in him And the Gospel is called The gospel of the glory of Christ 2 Cor. 4.4 That which is added in the Prophet v. 8. The word of our God endureth for ever that is the word of Christ of which himself said Matth. 24.35 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away It follows in the Prophet v. 10. Behold your God to which that of St. John Baptist answereth Behold the Lamb of God From these Premises it follows that Christ was that God foretold by the Prophet and pointed at by John Baptist The like is Mal. 3.1 compared with Matth. 11.10 of which before Isa 6. compared with Joh. 12.41 I saw the Lord sitting on a high throne c. To this St John refers These things said Isaiah as when 〈◊〉 saw his Glory The Argument is this He whose glory Isaiah saw was the God of Israel but Jesus is he whose glory Isaiah saw there fore he is the God of Israel Both these Propositions are express Scripture Jer. 23.6 compared with 1 Cor. 1.30 The Argument is this He whose name is The Lord our Righteousness is the God of Israel but the King Messias the branch of David Christ is he whose name is The Lord our Righteousness The major is granted the minor appears from the consideration of that Deliverance and Salvation there spoken of which is spiritual and Christ alone is the Author of this Redemption or Salvation Acts 4.10 Neither is there salvation in any other for 1 Cor. 1.30 of God he is made to us wisdom and righteousness sanctification and redemption He then that is the Lord our Righteousness is Jehovah Isa 41.4 compared with Revel 1.11 17. and 2.8 and Chap. 22.13 The words are I am the first and the last which are applyed to our Saviour Revel 1.11 17. The Argument is this He that is the first and the last is the most high God Christ is the first and the last therefore he is the most high God And doubtless our Saviour would never have assumed this Title so derogatory to God so dangerous to his Church if he had been but a Creature as the Socinians say Psal 24. with 1 Cor. 2.8 The Messias in the Psalmist is called the King of Glory Lift up your heads O Gates and the King of Glory shall come in This King of Glory is called The Lord strong and mighty and the Lord of Hosts i. e. the most high God And as this was Prophesied of Christ so it is applyed unto Christ whom the Apostle calls the Lord of Glory and as our Church Thou art the King of Glory O Christ therefore Christ is that Lord strong and mighty and the Lord of Hosts the most high God Zach. 11.13 compared with Matth. 27.9 The words are The Lord said unto me Cast it unto the Potter a goodly price that I was prized at of them c. Matth. 27.9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah saying And they took the price c. The Argument is this He that in Zachariah was valued at thirty Peices of Silver c. was the Lord God of Israel Christ was he that was thus valued therefore he is the God of Israel Zach. 12.10 compared with Joh. 19.37 Revel 1.7 The words are They shall look upon me whom they have peirced c. So St. John and another Scripture says They shall look on him whom they have peirced The Argument is this He whom the House of David and Inhabitants of Jerusalem are said to look on and to have peirced is the most high God Christ is he whom they should look on and whom they had peirced therefore Christ is the most high God It is evident that he who spake this in Zachariah was Jehovah that would pour out the Spirit of Grace and Supplication which makes the first Proposition undeniable and the Apostle confirms the second so both are undeniable Numb 21.5 6. compared with 1 Cor. 10.9 He for tempting of whom the Israelites perished in the wilderness was the God of Israel For tempting of Christ the Israelites perished in the Wilderness therefore Christ is that God of Israel Isa 52.67 compared with Rom. 10.15 The words are Therefore my people shall know my Name therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak behold it is I. How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth glad tidings that publisheth peace that bringeth good tidings of good that publisheth salvation that saith unto Sion Thy God reigneth This is a Prophecy of Christ and a certain time is spoken of his appearance In that day they shall know that I am he Ecce adsum Behold it is I. The Argument is this He that says Behold it is I or Ecce adsum is the God of Israel but it is Christ that says it in the Prophet therefore he is that God of Israel Socinus grants this place concerns the time of Christ's coming but would have it to refer to the Deliverance from Babylon But the words of the Apostle Rom. 10.15 O how beautiful are the feet c. plainly refer to the Apostles that preached the Gospel which contains the glad Tidings of Peace which the Prophet spake of with great admiration Behold thy King reigneth And Socinus grants that the Deliverance from Babylon was but a Type of that by Christ the truth or true Deliverance intended was that by Christ the God of Israel Isa 60.1 compared with Eph. 5.14 The words are Arise arise for thy light is come and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee The Apostle gives the meaning of this Scripture Eph. 5.14 Arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light which he thus prefaceth wherefore he says i. e. the Holy Ghost in the Scripture and that Christ is spoken of appears from v. 3. And the Gentiles shall come to thy sight agreeable to A light to lighten the Gentiles The Argument then is He that was to enlighten the People of Israel and to be a Light to the Gentiles was the God of Israel but Christ was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of his people Israel therefore Christ is the God of Israel Isa 54.5 compared with Matth. 9.15 and 25.1 1 Joh. 3.29 2 Cor. 11.12 The words are For thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name The Argument is this The Husband of the Church is the God of Israel Christ is the Husband of the Church therefore Christ is the God of Israel The Prophet affirms the first Proposition the second is proved by our Saviour Mat. 9.15 where he calls himself the Bridegroom and chap. 25.1 in the Parable of the ten Virgins He is the Bridegroom Eph. 5. the Apostle speaks of Christ and his Church as of Husband and Wife This Union was prophesied of by Hosea chap. 2.16 In that day thou shalt
observe that such a Practice was ancient and in some times reasonable Antonius Pagi a Franciscan in his Critical Notes upon Baronius ad Seculum secundum p. 21 c. gives us several Quotations to this purpose St. Augustine on John Tract 96. says That the Sacraments of the Faithful are not exposed to the Catechumens and the Catechumens do not know what the Faithful do receive Chrysostom on Matth. Hom. 27. Those only that are initiated do know what the Faithful receive Origine in his first Book against Celsus shews the Reason as well as the Custom of concealing some Christian Rites he tells him That the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Crucifixion Resurrection and coming to Judgment were known to all but the Jews derided them and that was the cause that other Mysteries were concealed particularly that of the Holy Trinity And concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity St. Chrysostome Hom. 4. on 1 Cor. professeth that he durst not speak of the Form of Baptism and of the Creed in which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is explained I dare not saith he because of those that are not yet initiated who make the Exposition more difficult who compel us either not to speak openly or to discover Secrets to them yet I will speak of them as far as I am permitted under Figures St. Cyril of Jer. Catech. 6. speaking of the Mysteries contained in the Creed says The Church layeth open these Mysteries and Sacraments to those that are initiated but it is not their Custom to expose them to the Gentiles we do not declare to them the Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor do we openly preach them to the Catechumens but in such a secret manner as they that profess the things may understand it and they who understand it not may not be prejudiced There is something to this purpose in Soz. l. 1. c. 20. I thought saith he to have set forth a Copy of the Creed as necessary for the Demonstration of our Faith but when some of my Friends pious Men and well skilled in the knowledge of these things perswaded me that I should keep in silence such things as are fit for Priests only to speak of and for such as are already initiated to hear I approved of their Counsel because it is very probable that some who are not yet initiated may read these Books wherefore I have hid as much as I could those Secrets which ought to be concealed acquainting the Reader with such Decrees of the Council which they ought not to be wholly ignorant of And indeed we find that the Heathen when they heard of the secret Doctrines of the Trinity Sacraments and Prayers of the Primitive Christians did make sport of them and ridicul'd them on their Theatres and publick Plays whereof we have an instance in Lucian's Philopatris or a Dialogue wherein he represents a Christian instructing an Ethnick by whom he ought to swear Thou shalt swear says he by the God that rules on high the great immortal and immutable God by the Son of the Father and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father one in three and three in one conceive this to be Jupiter your God To which the Ethnick answers I cannot apprehend what you say is one three and three one Thus also he scoffs at our Lord's Prayer when the Heathen bids his Catechumen go and say the Prayer beginning Father and end with a Song of many Names i. e. the Doxology Socinus says in his Defence against Eutropius That he never read any thing more strong for the Opinion of the Trinity than this of Lucian he wrote in the time of Trajan St. Hierom speaking of the Translation of the Septuagint says That the Translators did not reveal to Ptolomy the Incarnation of the Son of God lest the Heathen should think they had two Gods Proeme on Gen. Casaubone on Baronius Exerat 16. and Monsieur Morney mention the same Discipline which may be a great reason why so few of those ancient Fathers mentioned the Trinity and those who did spake in such dark Terms as our Author himself hath observed p. 56. c. 2. that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did hide from the Catechumens the Rites of Sacraments So that considering this Discipline which restrained many Ancients from publishing the whole Truth and the diligence of the several Hereticks to alter and expunge what was written against them it is a wonderful Providence that so many Authentick Testimones are preserved The following Collections are mostly from Mr. Bull 's Book where the Reader may see them asserted The Epistle of Barnabas written about the time of the Apostles call Christ the Son of God Lord of the whole World by whom and for whom all things were made i. e. by him as the Efficient and for him as the Final Cause which agreeth with the Apostle Rom. 11.36 and cannot be said of any but God without Blasphemy s 1. c. 2. n. 2. and in c. 5. of that Epistle he says That he who foreknew all things foretold his People that he would take away the Heart of Stone and give them a Heart of Flesh because he was to appear or be made manifest in the Flesh and to dwell in us for our Hearts says he are the holy Temple of the Lord. Hermas another Apostolical Writer in his Book called The Pastor affirms That the Son of God was present with his Father before all Creatures and calls him his Counsellor and that the name of the Son of God is great and infinite that the whole World is sustained by him and thus distinguisheth between the Son of God and the Creatures Similitud 9. And l. 3. Simil. 5. he says The Son of God is not put in a servile condition but in great power for to be put in the form of a Servant and to be a Creature are of one signification This agrees with that distinction of the Apostle Phil. 2. c. 6. between the Form of a Servant and the Form of God Of this Author Petavius says That he was never suspected to have any false Opinion of the Trinity Martialis a Bishop and Martyr and who is said to have been one of the seventy Disciples in his Epistle to the Burdegalenses c. 2. says of our Saviour That as a Man born of the Virgin he could die but as the Son of God he was from the beginning and as God he could not be held under the power of Death And Chap. 4. He being the true God and true Man shall judge all Nations Chap. 10. That the Spirit of God most glorious by Divine Equality did proceed from the Word not begotten not made nor created but the Word was begotten therefore says he do ye not conceive any thing different in the Deity of the Trinity because to you there is one and the same God the Father that created all things and one and the same Lord by whom all things were made his Son Jesus Christ and one and
the same God the Holy Spirit in whom all things subsist and this Deity spoken of in three Persons is one individed God And Chap. 11. When we are freed from this Body we shall be in Heaven with Christ God and Man whom we worshipped here on Earth Polycarp an Apostolical Author in his undoubted Epistle to the Philippians says Thus God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest and Son of God Build you up in the Faith and Truth c. Such an Invocation is proper only to God with whom the Son is joyned And again We are all in the sight of God and the Lord and must all stand before the Tribunal of Christ And in another Fragment of Polycarp's mentioned by Eusebius l. 4. c. 15. we have these words I bless thee in all things and glorifie thee by the Eternal High-Prist Jesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom to thee together with him in the Holy Spirit be glory now and for ever Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and a Martyr was the Disciple of Polycarp he begins his Epistle to the Smyrnians thus I glorifie Jesus Christ God who hath made you so wise And thus he salutes the Ephesians In the good will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God there is one Omnipotent God who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son who is his substantial Word and not by pronunciation but the begotten Essence of the Divine Power Ad Magnes 3. So in the 5th to the Philip. The Lord commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not in one that had three names only nor in three that were Incarnate but in three of the same Dignity for one of them was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but the Son only who was so not in opinion nor in Phantasie but indeed for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us How should not he be God who raised the Dead made the Lame to walk cleansed the Leapers and gave sight to the Blind And to the Philadelphians There is one God the Father unbegotten one Son the only begotten God the Word and Man one Paraclete the Spirit of Truth If any one say there is one God and confess Jesus Christ but conceives him to be a meer Man and not the only Begotten the Word and Wisdom of God but thinks him to consist only of a Body and a Soul this Man is a Serpent as Ebion was who taught error and deceit Epist 6. To those of Smyrna Epist 7. he calls Christ the God that bore flesh And Epist 8. to Polycarp He that was not passible as God suffered for us as he was Man In the 9th to the Antiochians He who acknowledgeth one only God to deny the Deity of Christ he is a Devil and Enemy of all Righteousness And in the Conclusion of that Epistle He who only is unbegotten preserve you both in Body and Soul by him who was born before Ages Epistle 11. ad Ephes The Word was made Flesh the Incorporeal in a Body the Impossible in a Body passible In his Epistle to the Romans Suffer me to be an Imitator of the Passion of Christ my God And in another Epistle to the Ephes There is one Physitian Carnal and Spiritual made and not made God in the Flesh the true Life in Death of God and of Mary Clemens Romanus useth the same distinction of our Saviour according to the Flesh and attributing to him the Splendor of the Magnificence of God preferring him above the Angels And his Expressions do so agree with those in Heb. 1. that Junius after St. Heirom and others have supposed him to be the Author of that Epistle he exhorts the Corinthians to Humility because saith he Our Lord Jesus Christ the Scepter of the Magnificence of God came not in Pride Consider says he what an Example is set before us if the Lord so humbled himself what should we do who live under the yoke of his grace There is a second Epistle of St. Clement mentioned by Eusebius l. 3. c. 38. And in the Apostolical Canons which speaks thus Brethren we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God nor ought we to think meanly of our Salvation for if we think too meanly of him we can hope but of little things from him St. Justin Martyr who being a Philosopher became a Christian in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew calleth Christ King and God he wrote an Exposition of the Faith and of the Trinity in the same Essence There is one God of all saith he who is known in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit for since the Father begot the Son of his own Nature and Essence and produced the Holy Spirit from the same therefore those which are of one and the same Essence are rightly esteemed to be of one and the same Dignity And he calls Christ God before all Ages And in his Apology to the Senate he saith That Son of God who alone is properly called his Son is the Word that was with him before the World was made as the Light is with the Sun Ireneus in his third Book against the Heresie of Valentinian c. c. 6. saith Neither the Lord nor the Holy Spirit would have absolutely named him God who was not God unless he had been the true God Thus the Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy foot-stool For the Father speaks it to the Son to whom he had given the Heathen for his Inheritance and put all things under his feet thus also it is said Thy throne O God is for ever c. Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee where both he that anointeth and he that is anointed are both called God by the Holy Spirit and speaking of the Personal Union c. 20. he says The merciful God in his love to Mankind did unite God and Man together and that it behoved the Mediator of God and Man to partake of the Nature of both This Author blames those that deny the Father of the Universe to have a Son who being the Word is the first Begotten and so is God and again in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he reproves them who deny Christ to be God being the Son of the Ineffable and Singular God and therefore calls him the Lord and God as being the Son of God And p. 33. he calls him The only Begotten of the Father of the Universe the Word and Power properly begotten by him and afterward made Man by the Virgin And he tells Triphon That the Son was begotten of his Father not by way of Abscission as if the Substance of the Father was divided but as one Fire is kindled by another without any diminution of the first which remains the same still viz. the Fire kindling and that which is kindled are of the same nature still Among many other I shall mention only
that place of this Author in his second Apology where he says The Christians are not Worshippers of many impure Gods but they worship the Father Son and Holy Ghost in reason and in truth Athenagoras a Philosopher and Christian in his Apology for the Christians to Antoninus saith Least any should think me ridiculous in saying that God hath a Son as the Poets who speak of Gods which were 〈◊〉 other than Men the Word or Reason of God is of the same Form and Efficacie with the Father for of him and by him all things were made and the Father and the Son are one the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father for the Word of the Father is the Son of God united together in Power Vertue and Substance but distinguished in Subsistence and Personality Tatianus a Disciple of Justin Martyr in his Oration against the Greeks says That Christ was begotten not by any abscission but by participation or communication because that which is cut off is separated from the Original but that which is communicated doth not diminish that which doth communicate as the light of one Torch is not diminished by communicating light to another so the Word going forth from the Power of the Father did not leave the Father destitute of the Word Clement Bishop of Alexandria the Disciple of Pantenus a Martyr and Master of Origen saith That the Word was and is the Divine Principle of all things which Word hath now appeared unto Men who alone is both God and Man In his Admonition to the Gentiles speaking on Titus 2.13 of the Great God he applies it to Christ who saith He teacheth us to live well that he may as God bestow eternal Life on us hereafter And then he perswades the Gentiles Believe O Man in him that was God and Man believe him that suffered and is worshipped the living God believe in him all ye Men who alone is the God of all Men. And there he tells them That he is most manifestly the true God equal with the God of the Universe the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son And in his Pedoag l. 1. calls him The Holy God Jesus Tertullian in his Apology against the Gentiles c. 21. speaking of Christ saith We affirm'd him to be begotten of God and therefore to be the Son of God by unity of substance for both are one Spirit as when a Beam is extended from the Sun the Sun is in the Beam because it is a Beam of the Sun the substance being not seperated but extended thus he is God of God as is Light of Light for whatsoever thus proceeds from God is God Prolatum a patre non separatum dispositione alium non divisione as Grotius on John 1. quotes him In his Book against Praxeas he saith That God alone was before all things but he was alone because there was nothing without him yet was he not alone because he had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason with him And Grotius on John 1. quotes Tatianus speaking to the same sence That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Tertullian calls him God of God and Light of Light the Son not separate from the Father of one undivided Substance le cont a Proxeam c. 4. teneo unam substantium in tribus coherentibus That the whole Trinity is of one Dignity and Power In c. 17. he ascribes all the Attributes of God the Father to the Son and chap 2. against Praxeas he says The name of the Father is the Almighty God the most High the God of Israel all these agree to the Son and on Christ's words I and my Father are one he shews that they are two whom he makes equal and joyns in one Theophilus Antiochenus writing to Autolocus l. 2. says That which is begotten of God is God Which he speaks of the Word alway existing in the heart of God Ireneus l. 3. c. 6. says That neither our Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would so distinctly and absolutely have called Christ God unless he had been the true God and if at any time it gives the name to them that are not Gods it is with some addition and signification to manifest that they are not true Gods And from Christ's words to the Pharisees concerning the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham c. he concludes That Christ with his Father is the God of the Living who spake to Moses and was manifested to the Father And he applies that of the Apostle to the Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose were the Father's and of whom was Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed for ever which Scripture is so expounded by most of the Fathers He proves also the Deity of Christ he says That Christ is the measure of the Father because he comprehends him And this he appropriates to our Saviour who only comprehends the Father and he excludes the whole Creation from knowing or apprehending the Father according to his Greatness L. 2. c. 43. he says Thou O Man were created and didst not alway exist with God as doth his own Word And l. 3. c. 8. he says Nothing can be compared with the Word of God by whom all things were made Caius an ancient Presbyter of whom Photius makes mention in these words That he taught expresly of the Deity of Christ our God and of his Ineffable Generation by the Father Hyppolitus a Martyr about the Year 220 speaking of Christ says He was the infinite God and also a Man that had perfectly the perfect substance of both and that his Divinity was the same after his Incarnation as before infinite incomprehensible impassible unalterable and in brief a substantial subsistence Origen whose most mature and perfect Work being that of his Dispute with Celsus written when he was about sixty Years old confirms the same Doctrine speaking of the wise Men that presented their Gifts to our Saviour says That they offered them to him that was God and Man Gold as to a King Mirrh as to a Mortal Man and Frankinsence as to GOD. And that Christ had something that was Divine under the Humane Nature which was properly the Son of God God the Word the Power and Wisdom of God We do not separate says he the Son of God from Jesus for both the Soul and Body of Jesus were strictly united with the Word of God and of the Body of Christ he says It was the Temple of God the Word St. Cyprian another Latine Father a Bishop of Africa and an eminent Martyr writing to Quirinus against the Jews mentioneth divers Scriptures to prove Christ to be God as Isa 45. Psal 46. and proves That Christ being God and Man became Mediator between us and his Father In his Epistle to Cecilian speaking of Christ saith He is the Power Reason and Wisdom of God he descended into the Virgin and was God mixt with Man he is our God our Christ And to name no
more c. 11. speaking of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ he says That as Nature teacheth that he that is born of Man is Man so it teacheth that he that is born of God is God Theognostus of Alexandria as Athanasius quotes him taught the same Doctrine That the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father as is Beams from the Sun and as the Sun is not lessened by the effusion of its Beams so neither is the Substance of the Father diminished by begetting the Son the Image of himself Dionisius Romanus wrote an Epistle against the Sabellians wherein he says It is necessary that the Word of God be united to the God of all and that the holy Spirit remains in God and so the holy Trinity doth unite in One as in a certain Head viz. the Omnipotent God of the Universe And he confutes those who hold the Son of God to be made as other Creatures as being contrary to the Scripture Lastly That the Trinity is not to be divided into three Gods nor the Dignity of it to be lessened by the name of a Creature but we are to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his Son and in the Holy Spirit And that the Son is united to the Father he proves from the words of our Saviour I and the Father are one for thus the Divine Trinity and the preaching of that Holy Monarchy is preserved Dionisius of Alexandria whom the Arians boasted to be of their Party wrote against them in his own defence an Epistle which he calls a Resutation wherein he declares That he never was of the Opinion of Arius but that he alway thought our Lord to be the Word and Wisdom undivided from the Father For saith he under the name of the Father I imply that he hath a Son and when I mention the Son I understand also that he hath a Father and so I joyn them together for from whom should the Son come but from the Father But the Arians will not understand that the Son cannot be separated from the Father the names implying a communion between them and the Holy Ghost is in both and cannot be separated from him that sends him How then can you suspect me who use those Names to have thought that they may be divided or separated wherefore you accuse me falsly as if I had denied that Christ is Consubstantial with God Thus I said that the Plant proceeds from the Seed or Root and is another thing from that from whence it proceeds yet is it of the same nature with that whence it proceeds the River which flows from the Fountain hath another name for we do not call the River the Fountain nor the Fountain the River yet both do exist and the Fountain is as a Father but the River is Water flowing from the Fountain Greg. Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesaria hath left us this Confession of his Faith recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 28. There is one God the Father of the Living Word the Subsisting Wisdom the Eternal Power and Character the perfect Father of him that is perfect the Father of the only Begotten There is one Lord alone from him that is alone God of God the Character and Image of the Deity the efficacious Word the Wisdom comprehending the constitution of all things and the effective Power of all things the true Son of the true Father invisible of him that is invisible incorruptible from him that is incorruptible immortal and eternal And there is one Holy Spirit that hath its existence of God who by the Son hath appeared unto Men the perfect Image of the perfect Son the Life and Cause of the Living the Holy Fountain Sanctity and Giver of Sanctification in whom God the Father is manifest who is above all and in all and God the Son which is in all The perfect Trinity which is not divided nor separated in Glory Eternity Kingdom and Power so that there is nothing in the Trinity that is created or servile nothing added or superinducted which was not before The Son was never wanting to the Father nor the Spirit to the Son but the Trinity alway remained the same immutable and invariable In the Life-time of this Greg. Thaumaturgus a Synod of Bishops met at Antioch to Censure the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus who denied the Deity of Christ These Bishops denounced an Anathema against him having first admonished him of his Heresie and in that Epistle they say That they declare the Faith which they received from the beginning and alway held in the Catholick Church from the Apostles to that day even from those that had seen with their eyes and were made Ministers of the Word and which was preached in the Law and Prophets and in the New Testament And the Faith concerning Christ they say is this That he is the Word the Wisdom and Power of God that was before all Ages God the Son of God in substance and subsistance Pierius a Presbyter of Alexandria was of the same Opinion as Photius relates Cod. 119. That the Father and the Son were of one Substance and Equality St. Lucian a Presbyter of Antioch published the same Faith which is to be seen in Socrates l. 2. c. 10. We believe in one God the Father Almighty Maker of all things and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son by whom all things were made begotten of the Father before all Ages God of God Whole of Whole Sole of Sole Perfect of Perfect King of King Lord of Lord the Living Word Wisdom Life the true Light Way and Truth the Resurrection Pastor and Gate not obnoxious to Change or Alteration every way the express Image of the Father's Deity Substance Power Counsel and Glory the first Begotten of every Creature who was with God in the beginning God the Word as is said in the Scripture who in the last times came down from Heaven and was born of a Virgin according to the Scripture and in the Holy Ghost which is given to Believers to comfort sanctifie and consummate them as our Lord Christ commanded his Disciples go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are three in Person but agree in One. Arnobius gives the like Testimony That Christ without any Instrument Help or Rule but by the power of his own Nature made all things and as it was worthy of God nothing that was hurtful but all beneficial and this is the property of the true God to deny his bounty to none Lastly Lactantius whom the Arians claim to be of their Opinion says thus When we say God the Father and God the Son we do not speak of what is diverse or separated because neither the Father can be so called without the Son nor the Son be begotten without the Father seeing therefore the Father makes the Son and the Son makes him a Father there is in both one Mind one Spirit and
produced these Scriptures He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also I and the Father are one And I in the Father and the Father in me Which Scripture were commonly used by the Noetians and Samosatenians Patris voluit esse substantiam solidam propriam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filium autem sanctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as our Doctor renders it Wisdom and Power to act Sandius goes on Sabellius compared the Father to the Hyposi asis of the Sun the Son to the Light and Rays the Holy Ghost to its Calefaction he so taught the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one that they were but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence his Followers as Sandius observes were called Patropassians as teaching God the Father by the assumption of Humane Nature to be called the Son and in that Nature the Father suffered because one and the same God was Father Son and Holy Ghost without distinction of Persons which as Lirinensis said was to confound the Trinity and as our Doctor doth make it to consist of one Substance and two Proprieties or Energies viz. to Think and to Act. The Doctor says that Thought is the first begotten Son of God that Thought is a Word brought forth and is the same in substance with the Mind whence it issueth but if it issueth from the Mind it becomes separate and cannot be any longer the same with the Mind And this Opinion is the same which Philastrius notes to be the Opinion of Paulus of Samosata That the Word was not the substantial Son of God co-eternal with the Father but the Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enunciative or prolative Word only an aery Sound not a living and sempeternal Person co-equal with the Father An Opinion somewhat like that of Mr. Hobbs concerning the Trinity which he makes God the Father speaking by Moses in the Old Testament and by Christ in the New Sandius observes the like of Cosmas who taught with Sabellius That the Word of God was naked and without any subsistence which his Followers called Verbum vocale enunciativum and sometime internal or mental p. 117. And he tells us that though the Modern Socinians detest the Error of Sabellius yet they are ignorantly guilty of it p. 120. Near of kin are the Doctor 's new Notions of the second Person in the Holy Trinity to the old Heresies so often condemned making the second Person a Thought the third a Power and he might have named as many more of the Divine Propriety viz. Holiness Love Justice c. as would have made a Denary of Persons The Doctor describes the third Person in the Trinity by Power and Action and this description he says is constantly used in the Holy Scripture Though we find the Attribute of Holy more frequently annexed to that of the Spirit as Eph. 4.30 Grieve not the holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and the Holy Ghost in almost an hundred places We find also that of Power attributed to the second Person more eminently than to the third as 1 Cor. 1.24 Christ is called the power of God and the wisdom of God Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Hebr. 1.3 He upholds all things by the word of his power Matth. 9.6 The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins And he that made and upholds and shall judge all Men may most properly be called the power of God How vain then is that boast of the Doctor 's p. 49. That this his way of tracing the Holy Trinity agrees to a syllable with the words of the Holy Scripture and the Church of England and is more plain to be understood and proved than that magisterial way vulgarly used wherein Reason is not permitted to speak p. 50. This is Platonis fastum Majore fastu to oppose his private Reason against both the Reason and Authority of that Church whereof he professeth himself a Son and impose on it an old Heresie in a new Dress Bellar. in Cronol says That Fr. David held the Son and Holy Spirit to be Virtutes Dei non distinctas a Patre persona relatione vel essentiae Chap. 8. p. 53. Treateth of the Incarnation The Doctor entituled Chap. 7. of the first Edition thus Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured first because Impertinent And he endeavours to prove it impertinent to our Lord's design viz. That we should enquire after the Dignity of his Person that he was the Eternal Son of God this he calls Boys play and Push-pin and quotes the Judgment of Constantine for it When the Game as he calls it was first set on foot Then p. 29. of the first Edition It was no more necessary to understand the Dignity of the Person of Christ than for a Traveller to understand the Features of the Sun Now p. 55. of the new Edition If we regard the Dignity of the Person it is plainly more honourable to believe him God the Creator than a Creature Deified Then p. 30. he says That part of Mankind which our Lord most favoureth are most unable to pay him such a belief Now p. 54. If we consider the thing it self it appears much more credible that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the Nature of Man than that a Man should be made God endued with a new Omniscience to hear and Omnipotence to grant the Prayers of all Supplicants Then it was fruitless to the Enquirer's satisfaction p. 31. Now p. 55. If we consider the fruits our thankfulness must be greater our love more inflamed our obedience more quickned our hatred to sin more sharpned and all the good ends of Faith much more promoted Then it was dangerous lest we should blaspheme p. 36. and because we have no firm ground to go upon Now p. 55. Upon all accounts were the Scriptures so doubtful as to leave us to our choice we ought rather to carry our biass toward our Lord 's eternal Divinity than against it In this and what other Disputes may arise for I have not leisure to enquire what other Additions or Alterations are made I doubt not but the Rector of Exeter-Colledge will sufficiently answer the private Opinions of Dr. A. B. In the mean time I am very glad to hear and heartily congratulate the Doctor for what he hath declared p. 53. That though there be in the Trinity a great Mystery yet now nothing is more plain than that of St. John The word became flesh and dwelt among us or those words of St. Paul Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the flesh And that these and several other words of Scripture so plainly speak our Lord's Divinity that whoever otherwise interprets them will no less rob the words of their meaning than Christ of his honour And what is there in this wonderful Mystery that Reason cannot comprehend p. 54. And