one like the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days and received from him Glory and Power and a Kingdom The second from Rev. 5.7 Where the Lamb whom all confess to be Christ received a Book from him that sate on the Throne Where the Giver and the Receiver are really distinguished Ans If the Son of Man in the first Vision doth denote Christ as we acknowledge then he did exist before he was born of the Virgin which confutes the Adversaries In the second the Lamb had the same Honour given him from the twenty four Elders and from all the Creatures as he that sate on the Throne which argueth an Equality of Excellency so that all these imply a distinction of Persons not a diversity of Nature 4ly They urge those places wherein Christ is said to receive all things from the Father as Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Joh. 5.26 The Father hath given to the Son to have Life in himself whence he is said to be the Image Brightness and Character only of his Father's Person Heb. 1.3 Now it is say they necessary that he who receiveth be inferior to him that giveth and the Image or Character to its Proto-type Ans John 5.2 resolves all these Objections That God gave him authority of exercising Judgment as he is the Son of Man not of God for so he is God of God Light of Light the essential Image and Character of the Person of his Father and inferior only in Order not in Nature or Time But these Men will not distinguish with St. John between Christ's Humane and his Divine Nature nor with St. Paul between the Form of God and the Form of a Servant but this is their constant practice to confound the Essence and the Person 5ly They object that Christ is numbred among the Creatures being called the first born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and the beginning of the Creation Revel 3.14 He that shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and be subject to him therefore he cannot be of the same Nature and Excellency To this it is answered before That he is called the first begotten not the first created for he was begotten from Eternity before all Creatures which were made by him as it there followeth he was not created in Time as the Creatures were And if he had been so the first born he had been before the Angels and the Virgin Mary which the Socinians do deny against the Arians 2. The Apocalipt calls him the beginning of the Creatures of God as the Active Principle from whom all the Creatures had their beginning not the Passive as if he were the first of those things that were created 3. The delivering of the Kingdom into the hands of the Father and his subjection thereupon is not the subjection of the Nature but of the Economy after the finishing of the Mediatorial Office or if I may so speak the resignation or laying down of that Office that he might resume that Glory forever which he affirms he had with his Father before the World was John 17.5 6ly They oppose this External Generation and Glory of the Son by reasons for upon supposition of such Generation Crellius saith it would follow 1. That the Son would be the Son of himself 2. There would be infinite Sons 3. That the Son would be from Eternity and not from Eternity 4. That the Son was yet to be generated and to be generated to Eternity which are things irrational and not to be admitted Ans Reason doth not comprehend things Infinite though Faith may apprehend them therefore it is unreasonable to measure by the Rule of Reason those things which are peculiar to Faith only and depend on Revelation only and it is sufficiently revealed to us in the Scripture that there is One God and that in this Unity there are three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost This we believe because it is written and do not doubt though it appear not by Humane reasoning how this can be however we deny that from the Arguings of the Adversaries or from Reason rightly informed it would follow First That according to our Opinion the Son should be the Son of himself because one Essence doth not beget another but one Person begets another as the Father the Son who of him becomes another Person not another thing 2. It is but his Dream of infinite Sons seeing that the only begotten is of infinite Perfection which is not divisible or multiplicable 3. Nor is Eternity repugnant to Generation for Moscorovius against Smigletius defends the probability of it the Materia Prima to be eternal and uncreate and so still to remain which yet the Leaders of this Opinion will not grant to be and not to be from Eternity thus supposing the Sun to be eternal its splendor which all would grant to have been to be and to endure with it must be eternal 4. Therefore when the Nicene Fathers do express this eternal Generation of the Son by the Emanation of Light from Light they do not mean that which is fleeting from that which is fixed but do manifest as much as they could the Equality and Co-eternity of Persons in their Order affirming the Son to be begotten Genitum non generandum 7. Lastly They load the Incarnation with so many Absurdities as if from thence it would follow 1. That the Father and Holy Spirit were as much incarnate as the Son 2. That the Person of the Son did wholly cease 3. That things in themselves different did unite Or 4. or at least that as Nestorius says two Persons did yet subsist in the Son But this Heap of Trifles hath been long since confuted by those of our Party Hierome Zanchy whose words are worthy to be repeated treating of this Controversy saith I affirm that I never read any thing in the Writings of Lelius Socinus Ochinus Servetus and the rest of that Bran whose Dirt is flung about by the Modern Socinians that hath any thing of that Accuracy which many Books of the Ancient Hereticks had for they are all either the old Song repeated an hundred times or new Impertinencies condemned before they were conceived Thus that Strenuous Doctor a Person of Primitive Discipline and of great Learning and Experience in these Controversies To whom we may add the Acurate Bisterfield The Sum of all is this We do not say that the Essence was Incarnate but the second Person in the Trinity 2ly That he did not by this cease to be a Person because he assumed the Humane Nature not a Person 3ly Not that by this Assumption the Divine Nature were any way perfected but that he thereby perfected the Humane Whence 4ly different Natures as the Soul and Body in Man did unite in one Person by an ineffable but possible Union not making two Persons as Nestorius dreamed because they have but one Subsistence which the Humane Nature that was assumed brought not with
to the interpretation of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kiss the Son least he be angry and our Saviour applying this expression to himself makes it beyond doubt So they apply Psal 89.26 He shall call me thou art my Father c. which also is applied to the Messias and that God was his Father and that the Psalmist speaks of Christ St. Peter Acts 4.27 puts beyond doubt and that he was that Corner-stone which these Builders refused though there is not Salvation in any other verses 11 12 So that in the sense of the Jews our Saviour making himself the Messias and the Son of God he made himself God and did blaspheme And now having proved that this Author cannot by all his Art wrest this Scripture to his Socinian sence I hope he will be so civil as to grant us the same advantage as he challenged for himself if Christ being the Son of God only by Mission had been the genuine sence of St. John in this Chapter namely that as he would have all other Scriptures that speak of Christ as of God and the Son of God ought to be accommodated and understood in his Socinian sence of being so only by Mission so it being clear that our Saviour calling himself the Son of God made himself the Natural and Eternal Son of God as the Jews understand and counted him a Blasphemer for it he ought to grant that those other places which speak of our Saviour as God and the Son of God ought to be understood of his Eternal and Natural Generation And thus it is evident that there are some Men who can swallow Contradictions and Absurdities more gross than this Gentleman imputes to the Orthodox for to give Divine Worship to one whom we acknowledge to be a meer Man is a boldfac'd contradiction to the First Commandment and to our Saviour's Command of worshipping the Lord God and serving him only whereas if we acknowledge One God only and believe that this Supreme God subsists in Three Persons this cannot be accounted a Contradiction it is something above our apprehensions through our ignorance of the Nature and Operations of the Supreme Deity which cannot be fully known unto us it is above our Reason but not contrary to it because it is agreeable to Divine Revelation as the Harmony of the Old and New Testament and the Reason and Judgment of the most and best Divines in all Ages have asserted If a sober and learned Heathen should diligently read the Gospel of St. John and find the words God and Son of God so often ascribed to him and such Divine Works done by him and consider that St. John assisted by the Spirit of God did write his Gospel on purpose to vindicate the Deity of our Saviour which was denied by many Hereticks he could not rationally conclude otherwise than that he was the Natural and Essential Son of God Bisterfield against Crellius gives this sence of the controverted place Do ye not read that I the Messias said ye are Gods c. If they that were such as they are described Psalm 82. ignorant v. 2 c. Unjust Oppressors and ignorant Judges were honoured with the Title of Gods who yet must die like other Men and the Scripture which cannot lye owns them for such how can ye say that I who am ordained to be the Judge of the whole Earth and stand in the midst of the Congregations of such Gods as an Almighty and Omniscient Judge to break in pieces as with a Rod of Iron all such unrighteous Magistrates as oppose themselves against me who am sanctified and appointed to be the Redeemer and Saviour of the World that I blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God But I insist not on this though it may have more of Argument in it than the Socinians can confute it being said in the close of that Psalm 82.8 Arise O God judge thou the earth for thou shalt take all the heathen for thy inheritance which is very applicable to our Saviour The Doctor seems to grant That Christ was before he was sanctified and sent into the World Crellius grants That to sanctifie in Scripture signifies to separate one and choose him for some singular Office and to qualifie him by special Gifts for the discharge of that Office but this cannot be affirmed says he of him that is the most high God such Sanctification and Mission belongs to Christ only in respect of his humane Nature To this Bisterfield answers That he must be a Stranger to the Scripture that is ignorant who it was and to what end Christ was sent into the World both which will prove his Godhead not barely from his Mission but his Mission to that end for which he was pre-ordained which none could effect but he that was God the Work was too great for any or all the Angels of God much more for any one Man he therefore that was sent to such an end viz. the Redemption of the World and Satisfaction to the Divine Justice must be more excellent than Men or Angels or the Mission had been in vain therefore as St. Peter says We were redeemed by the precious blood of the Son of God and by nothing else as a meritorious cause Against this Crellius objects from John 17.18 As thou O Father hast sent me into the World even so I have sent them my Disciples into the World And 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World but neither of these were in Heaven before they were sent into the World therefore neither was Christ Answ The word As doth not signifie a likeness in all respects for then false Prophets as he supposeth or else he urgeth the place to no purpose were sent to the same end as Christ and his Apostles it signifies only some particular likeness in the Mission for Christ was sent by another and for another end than the Apostles were they were not sent to redeem the World by suffering in the stead and for the sins of Men but as Christ was sent into the World to perform this singular Office so were the Apostles sent and qualified to do their Office i. e. to publish those glad Tydings Lastly Whereas Crellius says That this Sanctification cannot pertain to the Divine but Humane Nature of Christ only The Answer is That this Sanctification being the Pre-ordination of Christ to that great Office of a Mediator between God and Man for the Sanctification and Salvation of his People he is said to be sanctified i. e. as Crellius says to be set apart and ordained by his Father for that Office or to sanctify himself by undertaking to accomplish it and to that end by his Divine he sanctified his Humane Nature the Sanctification of the Divine Nature was relative not absolute or internal as if any new Vertue or Divinity were added to it but the Sanctification of the Humane Nature was the Union of it to the Divine Nature in respect
itself but the Divine Nature assuming did confer And thus you have as time gave leave in one View the chief Points of this large and intricate Controversie To God the Father to the Son God and Man and to the Holy Ghost be all Honour Praise and Glory now and for ever Amen The CONCLUSION St. Hilary having vindicated the Doctrine of the Trinity l. 6. n. 2. says Lord I believed thy words if I am deceived Moses David Solomon and thy Apostles have deceived me if it be a Fault to believe these pardon me Almighty God for in this belief I can die deny it I cannot We have been baptized in this Faith we have offered up all our Prayers in this Faith and payed all our Thanksgivings to the Blessed Trinity and therefore we cannot dye comfortably in any other And with much more confidence may the Devout Trinitarian say as St. Heirome expresseth it Ecce Crucifixus meus Deus Behold my God which was crucified for me when he sees him coming in Judgment than the Arian or Socinian who proudly deny his Godhead and Satisfaction who may too late complain in the words of St. Augustine in his Confession l. 5. c. 9. I was going towards Hell laden with all my Sins while I believed not that Christ had satisfied for them FINIS ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Naked Gospel As now Published By ARTHVR BVRY D. D. THat this Book is now first published by the Doctor whose Name is prefixed cannot in Justice be denied by them that have read the former for it is quite another Book and it may be true though either one or the other if not both of the former Editions of the Naked Gospel were published by the same Author because they are not the same Books yet the one which he having caused to be printed and dispersed among his Friends in several parts of the Nation and the other wherein he made several Alterations may be affirmed to be published by the same hand the truth whereof needs no farther enquiry after the Oxford Animadversions That this present Copy is another Book appears by its divers Alterations and Additions which are made whether for the better or the worse will appear to every judicious Reader and that there needs no other or severer Reflections on it than what the Author himself hath made He seems so to tumble in the Net which he hath woven as to be more intangled by striving to get out In his Preface to the Reader he confesseth He had not patience to be silent at such a time when the suppression of such Opinions as he hath published would have been greatly advantagious both to Truth and Peace And whether it would not have been a great degree of sauciness by a point blanck Address of such a Present as the Naked Gospel to direct the Venerable Body of the Convocation of the Clergy in what they had to do is put beyond doubt by the Oxford Convocation I cannot find as he says that it was intended that the Convocation of the Clergy was called to make Alterations in Matters of Faith nor that we are to weigh at the same Beam a Rite in the one and a Doctrine in the other Seale The Convocation I believe would have given up all their Rites and Ceremonies rather than the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which the Doctor on pretence of Charity would have them to abandon He confesseth That his Book was penned with less caution than was necessary for what was to be exposed to every vulgar eye But how could he imagine that so many learned and good Men would be pleased with his questioning or denying the truth and belief of such Doctrines as they themselves believe to be necessary to Salvation He might therefore very well have spared his unbecoming Reflections on that Body That the Doctor was suspected to disbelieve the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation was not because he did not expresly declare his Opinion concerning them which a true Son of the Church of England and one that had been long before suspected as Heterodox writing on that subject was highly concern'd to do but because he hath slily and frequently insinuated divers Arguments against them and his daubing with untempered Mortar in his two new Chapters of the Trinity and Incarnation will render the matter more obscure and defaced As for those words in the conclusion which he conceives some are most offended with wherein he cannot submit to the least compliance Let him enjoy his own Sentiments only I cannot perswade my self that more than his an hundred years experience calls on us to tack about and steer a contrary course to what our Pilots in the greatest part of that time have steered As the number of those Men who are as sick of King William as they were lately of King James is so small that they may be all written in a Ring If he intends as the current of his Discourse would carry it such as were in the late Convocation all which had testified by solemn Oaths and divers of them by their learned Arguments and Exhortations their cheerful Obedience to their present Majesties whom God preserve as the most hopeful Defenders of our established Religion so I heartily pray there may not be one such Prevaricator left among us though even among the Twelve Disciples of our Saviour there was a Judas and I hope there is not one of a thousand among our Clergy that is so ill as the Doctor would represent them such I mean as he says would wish for the cruel French to deliver them from the present Government or that is so unreasonably jealous as to think that his present Majesty designs to make this Church not unlike to that in which himself was educated for which his vile suggestion contrary to His Majesties most gracious Assurances the Doctor is concern'd to beg His Majesty's Pardon and I pray God to pardon him also It is a most invidious and malicious Quere which he adds Which of the two are the truer Church of England-men those who dread the return of King James with his Jesuits or those who wish and labour for it Those who are so stiff as rather to hazard the whole than to part with the least circumstance And cover their stiffness to their own humours and interests with the specious pretence of zeal for the Church To which I answer That as I do not know so if I did know any person so ill affected I should abhor them as the Pests of the Nation To those of the Doctor I shall oppose these Queries Which are the truer Church of England men those who dread the growth and success of the Arian and Socinian Heresies or those who adhere to the established Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation of our blessed Saviour Those who would erect a Natural Religion a Jewish or Turkish Faith on the Ruines of that which is truly Christian Ancient and Catholick or those who live in the Communion
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he calls it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God and the Divine Word the Idea of Idea's and says That it is the beginning and end of the good pleasure of God that it abides with God that God had a power of Generation that the First-begotten is comprehended in the Mind only Tractat. Allegor Post sex dies and in the Treatise of the Modesty of Women the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called The Eternal Character of God and is God Now these obscure Notions which both Jews and Gentiles had of the Son of God are by St. John more plainly delivered for the Instruction of all Men and applied to the Person of our Saviour to convince us that he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this Word is God that God that was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and that they beheld his Glory the Glory of the only begotten Son of God full of Grace and Truth And the Jews in our Saviour's time concluded That Christ calling himself the Son of God made himself equal When our Saviour requires our belief of such Propositions as exceed our understanding it is a contempt and undervaluing of his Authority and Veracity to expect Demonstrations for them The Notion of a Christian is one that believes in Christ and St. August Serm. de Tempore 189 speaks of Adult Persons that were Baptized saying I am now one of the Faithful and believe what I cannot comprehend And St. Basil de S. S. c. 7. I testifie saith he to all that profess Christ and yet deny him to be God that Christ shall profit them nothing What Philosopher knows the Nature and Motions of his own Soul how it informs the Body and is Tota in toto tota in qualibet parte or by what Ligaments it is united to the Body and shall we presume not to believe the Union of the Godhead to the Manhood and other Revelations of the Gospel because our Reason cannot demonstrate how these things can be Si potes Cape si non potes Crede saith St. August Tract in John 35. The way to get a right understanding in spiritual things is to believe and practice them 'T is not we know and believe in Matters of our Salvation but we believe and are sure as the Original is Joh. 6.69 Believe that thou mayst understand saith St. Aug. on St. John Tract 29. If ye believe not that I am he saith our Saviour i. e. he that said Joh. 8.16 I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me I whom if you had known you should have known the Father also v. 19. I that came to die for your sins If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins It is well saith an ingenious Commentator that he said not Except you know that I am he ye shall die in your sins Tu rationare ego miror tu disputa ego Credam saith St. Augustine Do you reason I admire do you dispute I will believe And what was that he would believe Ipse Deus tria est unum quodque horum trium Deus est Omnia tria non Dii sed Deus est i. e. God is Three and each of these Three is God and all Three are not many but One God Tertullian was a Person of as profound Reason as any Socinian yet he submitted it to Revelation Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus Credibile quia ineptum certum est quia impossibile And Christianorum est Deum mortuum credere contra Marcion l. 2. n. 41. When in the Primitive Times Adult Persons were baptized they were question'd thus Credis in Deum Patrem the answer was Credo and so Credis in Deum filium Credis in Deum Spiritum Sanctam And hence they were called The Faithful St. Ambrose de Sacrament l. 2. c. 7. 1. The Doctor adds And if we descend to particulars in the Doctrines that are imposed as Articles of Faith the more Objections will rise in force and number By the way it is necessary to consider of what sort of Faith and Articles thereof he speaks if of an Antinomian Faith as separated from new Obedience and such Articles as are the Inventions and Impositions of Men then the Doctor acts impertinently and fights his own Shadow which he would ill resent His following Discourse will evidence what Faith he speaks of for p. 13. col 2. It is says he an acknowledged foundation in all Sciences that we must seek Truth by application of generals to particulars and it is the general scope of the Gospel to advance Natural Religion 'T is then the Faith of the Gospel which he treats of under his Notion of advancing Natural Religion and the sting of the Objection he says is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath one among Vices So that the truth of Evangelical Precepts and Revelations must be sought and approved by application of the Generals in Natural Religion The Objection which he says hath a Sting p. 13. Col. 2. is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath among Vices The Doctor well knows that the Faith we of the Church of England do profess is such a Faith as for the Objects of it is contained in the Creeds which we receive and such as for the nature of it doth work by Love and doth both purifie the heart and makes the Believer fruitful in every good Work a Faith that keeps us humble and holy not presuming to be justified by the merit of any Works of our own but through the Satisfaction made by Christ for which God will accept us and our sincere Obedience not imputing our Sins to us Moreover we acknowledge this Faith to be the Gift and the Work of God in us as Joh. 6.28 and St. Paul To you it is given not only to believe but to suffer And Phil. 1.29 By faith ye are saved and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Ephes 2.8 This is the Faith which he would make as Naked as his Gospel as if it were an effect of natural Reason as the Pelagians hold and wholly in our power without any operation of the Spirit of Christ without whom we can do nothing as to obtaining of the Grace of Faith or bringing forth the Fruits of Holiness If this be the Faith which he opposeth a belief of the Holy Trinity the Redemption of Mankind by the Eternal Son of God the Operation of the Holy Spirit in our Sanctification as it clearly appears he leaves all Christians in a State of Nature without any remedy by the Fountain of Grace of whose Fulness we have all received grace for grace In this Chapter Page 14. the Doctor mentioning that Scripture Rom. 4. ult Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification he says That though the
call me Ishi my Husband for v. 19. I will betroth thee to me for ever c. 1 Kings 8.39 and 2 Cron. 6.30 compared with Revel 2.23 The words are Thou only knowest the hearts of the sons of men All the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the Hearts and Reins to give to every Man according to his works The Argument is this The God of Israel only knows the hearts of Men Christ knows the hearts of Men therefore Christ is the God of Israel Both these Propositions are express Scriptures therefore the Consequence is undeniable Isa 63.1 compared with Revel 19.13 c. The words are Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed garments I that spake in righteousness mighty to save St. John speaking of Christ says He was clothed with a vesture dipt in bloud and his name is called the Word of God Now the Prophet speaks of the God of Israel and St. John applys it to Christ as by the Context in both doth appear therefore Christ is the God of Israel These among many others may suffice concerning the Harmony of both Testaments to which I may add those express Testimonies concerning the whole Trinity in the New Testament The first that I shall mention is such of which I may say as the Doctor doth of his Fundamentals p. 43. c. 1. That if all the rest of the Scripture were lost this alone would be sufficient to confute the Socinians viz. Mat. 28.19 Go ye and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost where we have three distinct Persons of equal Dignity and Power to whom under the same Name we dedicate ourselves and promise Worship and Obedience The Socinians are not ashamed to say That this place is added by Athanasius or some of his Perswasion though not only the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Fathers may evince the contrary but it is read in all the Greek Copies the Syriack and Aethiopick and Ignatius Tertullian and other Fathers have quoted and expounded this Text and the Socinians retain it in their German Edition of that Gospel An. 1630. 2ly They object That to be baptized in the Name of any doth not conclude him to be God seeing the Israelites were baptized into Moses and some Disciples into the Baptism of John Acts 19.3 Ans To be baptized into Moses was to be baptized by the Ministry or Hand of Moses as the Syriack Version reads and hence St. Paul says That none of the Corinthians were baptized in his name 1 Cor. 1.14 15. lest any should infer that he expected Obedience from them And it is one thing to be baptized in the Name of John and another to be baptized by the Administration of St. John's Baptism the import of Baptism is to believe as we have been baptized and to Worship as we believe i. e. The Father Son and Holy Ghost There are many other Scriptures that confirm the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Judgment of our Divines as Joh. 15.26 When the Comforter is come whom I will send from the Father where we have the Father from whom the Son by whom and the Person of the Holy Ghost that is sent So also 2 Cor. 13.13 in that Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost we have a plain distinction of three Persons the Authors of the same Grace So also 1 Cor. 12.5 6. And there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and diversities of administrations but the same Lord and there are diversities of operations but the same God where we have three Persons and but one God It is evident from these and many other Scriptures that by Concession of the Arians our Saviour had the Divine Attributes of Omnipotence and Omniscience communicated to him and if these were imparted to him by his Father it is not against reason that that other Attribute of Eternity might be also for to be Omnipotent and Omniscient implies an Infinity as the properties of the Eternal God nor can our Saviour be thought less than Infinite when we believe that he hears the Prayers searcheth the Hearts and knows the Thoughts of all Men and shall come to be the Judge of all without which Attributes he could not judge rightly The Creation and Conservation of all things do prove the same for he that made all things is God And so doth his being the only Law-giver and the only Judge and to qualifie him for these Offices he must be God to bind our Consciences to his Laws and to judge righteous Judgment And shall not the Judge of all the Earth judge righteously which none can do but the Omniscient and Omnipotent God Estius one of the best School-men asserts That no Creature can be so highly elevated by a supernatural power as to co-operate by way of a Physical Instrument in the Creation because it is a property that belongs to such an Instrument to have something of its own whereby to week dispositive for the effecting of the Creation Whence he says no Creature can be assumed to the power of Creation as a Physical Instrument the nature of that Instrument still remaining And nothing can be the cause of Creation which hath not an infinite Power because by how much the Form to be produced is removed from the Power of Production by so much a greater power is required in the Agent so that for the production of something out of nothing there is required an infinite Power because the distance between something and nothing is infinite so that our Saviour being as the Scripture affirms the Creator of the World he is also God over all blessed for ever Hence Origen against Celsus proves That God neither did nor could make the World by any thing without himself as the Angels of which it was discoursed were and hence he concludes That Christ by whom the World was made was God See also Ireneus l. 2.55 and l. 4. c. 37. St. Peter in Epistle 2.2.1 speaking of false Prophets that privily should bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought them says That they should bring upon themselves swift destruction And v. 3. Their judgment lingreth not and their damnation slumbreth not It may therefore be a good argument with many a person not yet infected with such Heresies to give a short Account of the manifest Judgments of God upon the chief Founders and Patrons of the Arian and Socinian Doctrines for for such Opinions of the Doctrines of the Gnosticks Cerinthus and Ebion c. which had infected the Asian Churches and for the wicked Lives of such as entertained those Heretical Doctrines it was that they had their Candle-stick removed and were left in Darkness and under the Dominion of Mahomet to this day Olimpius an ancient Arian Bishop publickly blasphemed our Saviour in a Bath and suddenly felt as it were three
these things were clearly and more at large treated of by the preceding three Evangelists And I would willingly learn from these quick-sighted Innovators how it can agree with the gravity simplicity and fidelity of an Apostle to promise a History and propose Riddles and so to involve and cloath the Matters proposed with such mistical words as might rather send away the Hearer with Astonishment than Instruction to invite to Secrets when he only offers things obvious which cannot satisfie expectation and which might better expedite the thing in fewer words as it was done by others Lastly Let all wise Men judge that are not partial how well these Photinian Glosses do clear the Text which says In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God The Gloss says Not in the beginning but before the beginning of publishing the Gospel Christ was hid known only in secret to God Which Fiction Martyn Cherovicius a Confident of that Party could not digest 2ly It follows in the Text And that Word was God The Gloss says He was but a made God he might have said a feign'd God 3ly The Text says All things were made by him The Gloss says Not all things but the things concerning the Gospel only were not made but reformed by him The Text says The World was made by him The Gloss says Not the World which we see but which we expect The Text says The Word was made Flesh The Gloss says The Word was not made Flesh but only subjected to the Miseries of the Flesh Do not these seem to you that hear them ingenious Glosses which so limit the Text as to eliminate them Let us now weigh the second place Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever The Apostle doth here distinguish of Christ as considered according to the Flesh and so he descended from Jewish Ancestors or as he is the Son of God and so he is God over all blessed for ever What need was there of this restriction according to the Flesh if Christ were only a meer Man They answer with Erasmus that perhaps the word God was not in the Text being omitted by St. Cyprian and Hilary but Erasmus notes that this might be omitted by the Carelesness of the Transcribers for Athanasius mentions it against the Arians Ambrose and Theophylact confirm it and Pamelius testifies that it was in the most ancient Manuscripts the Socinians have it in their German Translation as it is reported and Socinus himself doth not deny but if that word were wanting it is supplied by what follows blessed over all Therefore 2ly they flye to the pointing of the words and read the words thus Of whom is Christ according to the flesh over all here they make a Full-point and then as a Doxology they read thus adding the word sit Let God be blessed for ever So that Christ is not here stiled God but God who sent Christ is praised and thus indeed the German Translation of the Socinians is pointed Ans Matthias Glirius as Socinus on Aristole's Elenchs relates undertook to prove from 1 John 2.22 that Jesus was not the Christ but by what Artifice to wit by thus wresting the Text Who is a lyar says he but he that denieth here he placeth a note of Interrogation then he proceeds and reads thetically because Jesus is not Christ. But Socinus explodes him as a wicked Man let them therefore look to it who imitate him in the same Cause how they may avoid the same Condemnation The third place we urge from Philip. 2.6 Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but emptied himself taking the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man Here we have a manifest difference between the form of God and the form of a Servant and these most certain Propositions 1. That both these Forms were united in the Person of Christ 2. That by reason of the first he was equal to God and by reason of the later he was like unto Men. 3. That the first Form did assume the later by emptying himself so that his Divinity Equality with his Father Incarnation Hypostatical Union and Theanthropy which are severally spoken of in other places are here found joyned The Transilvanians with Maximinus the Arian in St. Augustine answer That the words of the Apostle are to be read thus Not thinking that rapine should be made so as to equal himself with God for so he should be injurious to God therefore that he might not do this he emptied himself i. e. he chose rather to be a Servant than an Invador of undue Dignity Ans It is a most filthy addition of the word made the Text says only he thought it no Robbery to be equal or as Tertullian says Pariari or be compared with God where it is expressed what Christ did not what he deliberated to do Socinus replies by retorting the Argument Christ is equal to God and hath the form of God therefore he is not that God Ans Yea therefore he is that God for to whom the form agreeth the thing formed agreeth also and nothing can be equal to God but God But the word Form he says doth not here denote an essential but accidental Form only nor can it consist with God so to humble himself Ans The Form of God here is to be taken in the same sence as the Form of a Servant because there is the same reason of things opposed but this of a Servant was true and essential and why not the other So that to be in the form of God is nothing less than to be the true God who lost nothing by humbling himself but by assuming what he had not before conferred many things to the Nature which he assumed And all the Authority and Majesty which was added to the Son was not added to him as God but as he was the Son of Man John 5.27 Our third Argument is drawn from the Harmony of the Old and New Testament in which those things which in the Old Testament are attributed to the only true God of Israel are in the New expounded of Christ Out of eleven Instances that have been mentioned three only shall suffice the first is Numb 21.5 The people spake against God and against Moses The Apostle in 1 Cor. 10.9 expounds this of Christ Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of Serpents Socinus objects 1. That by Eloim in the Old Testament God is not necessarily understood but frequently an Angel and by Christ in that place our Saviour is not necessarily understood but Moses 2. It may be said that the Israelites tempted Christ in the Wilderness not in his own Person which then was not but in Moses his Type Ans But Eloim which is here put absolutely in the six and seven Verses following is expresly called Jehovah which agrees