the Word Admon ad Gentes p. 11. saith He the Word appeared to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peddagog l. 1. p. 113. He only is both God and man In another place speaking of God and the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are both One Strom. l. 7. p. 702 703. that is to say God But in another place he insisteth largely upon this shewing the Divinity as well as the Humanity of Christ Origen against Celsus l. 1. Celsus saith Origen thinks there is no other Divinity in the Humane Body which Christ carried about than in Homer 's Fictitious Fables we affirm he doth consist of the Humane together with the Divine Nature In another Book against Celsus l. 2. In that we do sharply accuse the Jews that they did not believe their own Prophets who in many places did testifie that he is God God and Father of all Several other places I have noted in Origen Tertullian De Carne Christi acknowledgeth Christ hath two Substances And again in the same Book against Marcion he asserts the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ In his Book concerning the Trinity and his Book against Praxeas he clearly holds forth that Christ was God and man Cyprian thus Jesus Christ God and our Lord De bono Potientis though the Son of God did not despise to take the flesh of man Though immortal suffered himself to be made mortal In his second Book against the Jews he brings several Scriptures to prove Christ to be God and man Arnobius Contra Gentes I have observed in five places maintaining the same Doctrine of the Divinity and Humanity of Christ His eighth Book I do not reckon because it is supposed not to be his Lactantius in many Chapters of his fourth Took De Vera Sapientia doth manifest his faith plain enough that Christ is both God and man These Authors I have who all lived before Athanasius if they say that Christ was inferiour to his Father or was subject to him did receive from him c. Who deny this And doth not the Soripture say the same considering the Humane Nature of Christ the Offices he undertook the state of a Servant which he underwent we ean easily tell how to understand these things and yet believe he was true God as the Scriptures have declared and these Ancient Writers have believed These things considered make me believe the Truth of what Athanasius reports Contra Arian disput 1. That in the Council of Nice all the Bishops as many as were there present when they heard Arrius Doctrine concerning Christ they stopped their ears and all of them with a common suffrage condemned that Heresie and Anathematized it saying it was strange to and diverse from the Faith of the Church So it appears by the Quotations I have given out of the Ancient Writers from the Apostles dayes whence Athanasius and that Council were not the first that broached the Doctrine which we maintain as Orthodox but they maintained the same Doctrine which the Prophets and Apostles as Bradwardin offers to justifie had taught But I have done with this hoping that God will stir up those to whom he hath given abilities and have time for studies to appear against these Doctrines so destructive to the Christian Religion and tending so much to the perdition of mens Souls As to this Treatise I know it is that Subject upon which several men of better heads and hearts than mine have already written But that which is the main thing in it and without which I had no thoughts of ever setting Pen to paper I have not met with any man that hath spoken to it yet the consequence is so great that the soundness or unsoundness of our Conversion depends upon it Whether that which I have written be fatisfactory to the judicious Reader I must leave it being willing to be taught if I have erred If the Reader be offended at the language being so plain I shall not be much troubled at that it hath been ever my unhappiness to prefer an Apodictick Syllogisme before a Jingling Paranomasie my business is with those who are troubled about their Spiritual state whether it be sound or false and Silken language sutes not those who are cloathed in Sackcloth I am much encouraged as to this Point by the stile in which the Holy Spirit guided his Servants to write also by observing whom they were that God hath made the greatest use of in his Church as to bringing home Souls to Christ neither Mr. Richard nor Mr. John Rogers were John Chrysostom yet God honoured none more in these parts of England with Conversion of Souls than these men Gallant language never did Gods work that I have observed what is it indeed as to a mans Judgment or Conscience I write as I love to read when I read Divinity Books I look for Divinity and solid Reason not for Language that man to whom sound Divinity will not be acceptable unless it be cloathed with embroidered language had best make sure that his heart be sound these are not the Readers for whom I intend my Discourse being such I believe as never were acquainted with the works or troubled with those temptations of which it treats Some Quotations there are out of Latine Authors which I have not translated into English supposing they would not be understood by most though they were translated If God shall please to make my labours helpful to thy spiritual estate let God have the praise and let him have thy Prayers who is One of the meanest of Christs Servants GILES FIRMIN ERRATA By reason of the Authors remote distance from the Press many faults have escaped which the most material are here taken notice of and the Courteous Reader is desired to correct them as any other here not specified INtroduction Page 1. line 12. read them p. 2. l. 1. r. allude Treatise Page 2 line 29. read praeparationibus p. 5. l. 10. dele all p. 9. margent r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 13. l. 15. r. signal p. 16. l. 5. r. to p. 18. l 7. r. Mechanicks p. 19. l. 4. r. make p. 23. l. 11. dele first p. 27. l. 11 dele his p. 30. l. 28. r. so p. 30 l. 31. r. Sculls p. 31 l. 10. r. as p. 32. l. 25. r. only p. 34. l. 13. r Joh. 16. p. 45 l. 8. r. Parson p. 58. l 33. r. his p 91. l. 25. r. extrinsece p. 98. l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 99. l. 28 r. as p. 100. l. 24. r. own p. 108. l. 23. r. it p. 109. l. 9. r. it p. 115. l. 4. r. stick p. 116. l. 9. dele it p. 133. l. 19. r. volitum p. 142. l. 10. dele after p. 156. l. 27. dele laid l. 28. r. Egyptians were p. 158 l. 21. r. King I ult r. attribute p. 162 marg r. ignorance p. 162 l 36. dele not do p. 166. l. 26 r declaring assent
praedicatur sic Essentia Divina de pluribus distinctis suppositis aut personis contra ingenium aliorum singularium tamen manet singularis quia est de natura universalis ut in iis de quibus praedicatur natura ejus multiplicetur ut natura humana multiplicatur in Petro Paulo c. That the holy Scriptures are clear in asserting the Divinity as well as the Humanity of Christ the Disciples of Mahomet * Vide Hornbeck Sum. contro p. 131. will acknowledge if we own Paul's Epistles to be Canonical therefore in their Disputations with us Christians upon that Point about the Divinity of Christ they decline the Authority of Paul's Epistles and say they were adulterated by the Christians this is very strange that Mahumetans can see this and the Socinians that own these Epistles and dare not say they are adulterated yet cannot read this It is something that we have these Mahumetans determining for us that those who own those Epistles to be authentick must own Christ to be God Secondly There is no Article of our Christian Faith which the Socinians oppose that is seemingly so contrary to reason as is the measuring of an Infinite Essence by Finite Maximes 1. We deny that any Article of Faith which we maintain is contrary to sound Reason though it be above Reason therefore I put in the word seemingly contrary Let that which measures be able to contain the thing measured And is not this the Logick of the Socinians How do they judge of the Articles of our Faith how do they measure them the unity of the Essence in the Trinity of the Persons the union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Person but by these Maximes by which they measure a finite Essence In a finite Essence it is impossible that one singular Essence should subsist in three distinct Persons therefore it is impossible it should be so in the Infinite Essence To have two distinct Natures unite in one Person this cannot be Therefore it cannot be in the second Person of the Trinity Yet the Misleto and the Apple-tree are united together and are distinct The sum of their Logick is this what cannot be found in a Finite Being must be denied in the Infinite Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we account a great piece of Sophistry in disputing Certainly a most gross absurdity to take Maxims fitted for finite Creatures and limit the Infinite Being unto them when as Infinite and Finite differ toto Coelo What use these Maxims may be of laying down first the Scripture for my Major to which I assent upon the Authority of God revealing I have touched in my former Head but cannot now insist upon it Thirdly To give Divine or Religious worship to a Creature is not only above Reason but is contrary to and repugnant against sound Reason But this is the Socinians practise Christ is but a Creature a meer man yet to Christ do they give Religious worship in so much that Socinus will not own him to be a Christian who will not worship Christ with Divine or Religious worship Let the Socinians name one Article of our Faith that is so contrary to reason as this I argue upon the Socinian Principle which is that all Articles of Faith all the Propositions in the Scripture must be brought to the Bar of our Reason yea Socinians Reason and there they must receive their sentence whether they be true or false whether they are to be rejected or received Hence the Doctrine of the Trinity the Eternal generation of the Son the Personality of the Holy Ghost the personal union of the two Natures in Christ the satisfaction of Christ Imputed Righteousness the corruption of our Reason and Will after the Fall the Resurrection of our Bodies the same bodies which we lay down these among others receive their sentence of condemnation at this Bar yea though the Judge Reason be dim sighted corrupted yet so it must be Why Because all these do not agree with Reason therefore they are all condemned If Reason then must judge all let us try this at the Bar of Reason I will only use one Argument that Christianus Francken used against Socinus being one of the same Opinion with Socinus as to the Divinity of Christ and therefore looking upon him as Man only would not have Religious worship given to him which Socinus did Several Arguments he hath to which Socinus gives miserable answers and truly we may sit still till we see how Socinus and his party can clear themselves from being Idolaters which Christianus Francken Francis David with their party who deny Christs Divinity also do prove Socinus and his followers to be for worshipping Christ with Religious worship whom they deny to be God and but a meer Creature His Argument is this How great is the distance between a Creator and Creature so great ought to be the difference between the honour which is given to the Creator and the Creature But between the Creator and the Creature is the greatest infinite distance whether you respect the Nature and Essence or the Dignity and Excellency Therefore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of God and the Creature But the honour which is chiefly due to God is Religious Adoration Therefore this is not to be given to a Creature Therefore not to Christ whom you confess to be a pure Creature This was his Argument and now let Reason judge I urged this Argument of giving Religious worship to a Creature against a Socinian The answer he gave me was this If it were the Pleasure of God to have it so as it was then it ought to be so and it was righteous and good it should be so To which Answer of his I reply This Pleasure of God leads us to another Question An beneplacitum Dei sit prima regula Justiciae which some affirm others deny The Socinian by this Answer did affirm it implicitely making this to be a duty and righteous act to give Divine worship to a Creature because it was the good pleasure of God to have it so invincible Arguments to prove that Thesss would have been acceptable Secondly What shall become of the Socinian Principle Now you Judge Reason may sit alone upon the Bench we shall carry away all the Court to another Tribunal the good Pleasure of God and to this we are willing to go Thirdly This good pleasure of his must be known by the holy Scriptures in which he hath revealed his pleasure as to our duty But then I will say with your Master Socinus If the Scripture doth say so it must not be believed because it is contrary to reason therefore there is some other hidden sense in that Scripture which must be searched out this is fair dealing I do but measure to Socinus in his own bushel for I am sure here is a Principle contrary to Reason and sound Reason Fourthly I utterly deny it that ever it
was the pleasure of God that religious worship should be given to any meer Creature Take Christs word for that Matth. 4.10 It is written there is an old Law for this God hath manifested his pleasure as to this point Deut. 6.13 and 10.20 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Crellius makes great use of this exclusive Particle only in John 17.3 which he puts in the front of all his Texts against the Divinity of Christ because he said in his Prayer This is life eternal to know thee the only true God Crellius putting the stress upon the word only proves that Christ excludes himself from being the true God By the same word and as good reason say I doth Christ exclude himself from being the Object of religious worship Let the Socinians say what they can I know what distinctions Socinus useth to help himself here but whence had he them Out of the Turkish Alcoran not out of the holy Scriptures I am sure they are wholly silent as to any such Notions so that thence he must have them or they are the putrid Figments of his corrupt brain But let Francken alone with him I will not multiply more Texts being now I am in an Epistle to the Reader Only one Text more which Francken urgeth against Socinus Isai 42.8 My glory I will not give to another So Isai 48.11 here God declares it plainly that it is not his pleasure to give away the glory due to him unto any other he is peremptory against it Francken urgeth the Text tus Religious worship is the glory of God and God saith he will not give his glory to another Therefore he hath not given it to Christ if he be not God Socinus may scratch his head but shall never be able to answer it But one word more concerning this Text I think it will afford some thing against Socinus and Francken too denying the Divinity of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words are I am Jehovah that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another What glory is here especially meant That which he had mentioned just before Gloria Jehovitatis meae as Calonius phraseth it the glory of my Deity that name Jehovah which is proper to me this glory I will not give to another So Chap. 83.18 That men may know that thou whose Name alone is Jehovah art the most high c. Jehovah then is Gods Name and his alone and he that bears this Name is the Most high over all the Earth This glory he will not give to another But this Name Jehovah is given to Christ in the holy Scriptures as Calonius in his learned Tract Theolog. Nat. Rovel p. 218 c. De Nomine Dei Tetragrammato hath shewn and defended them against all the windings of that subtle Serpent in Crellius and his Companions but were not Christ of the same Essence he should not bear the glory of that Name Jehovah Fifthly and lastly I answer It is very true the holy Scriptures do clearly manifest that Divine worship is due unto Christ and it must be given to him both natural and instituted worship we shall find given to him But first That this depends upon the meer pleasure of God I deny as if God might have otherwayes disposed it that no religious worship should be due to him unless that Thesis I mentioned before be true That the good pleasure of God is the first Rule of all Righteousness which some do maintain and from hence argue that if the Lord had so pleased there should have been no worship due to himself from his Creature the Creature should not have needed to love God above all to fear him trust in him or serve him any way pray unto him c. only it was his good pleasure to have it so but this makes all the worship due to the Father depend upon his meer pleasure and doth not hurt our Canse at all whether that Thesis be true or no doth not now concern me Secondly I answer Religious worship is not given to him as a Creature but as he is a Creator God over all blessed for ever for which there are Texts plain enough would but the Socinians hold to the Rules which they seem to approve of viz. Non esse recurrendum ad Figuras donec absurditas Sermonis proprie ita ut sonat intellecti monstretur If Schmalzius would but hold to what he sayes Ludum jocum e Scripturis facere pronunciat qui absque necessitate a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discedunt Would but the Socinians hold to these Rules we shall find Christ to be a Creator not of the new Creature only but of the Creature the Scripture cannot speak plainer than it doth as to this Point Colos 1.16 confutes that Socinian corrupt gloss which they put upon those Texts which declare that all things were created or made by Christ for the Angels I hope had no need of any new Creation Now if the holy Scriptures must be believed when they tell us Religious worship must be given to Christ who is but a Creature as say the Socinians though this be contrary to sound Reason yea and as contrary to the holy Scriptures which will call this Idolatry Then I hope the same Scriptures may as well be believed when they tell us of one singular Divine Essence subsisting in three Persons and of the Humane and Divine Nature united in one Person which things are above but not contrary to Reason Our Reason at the best before our fall being but finite but since our fall corrupt and dim For my part I cannot see how this practise of the socinians can stand but were I of their opinion I must go over to Franciscus David and Christianus Francken and so I believe will our English Socinians ere long upon several grounds which move me to think so but this among the rest perswades me because they are fallen off from some part of his worship already as I learn by the Socinians with whom I had discourse For the Saoraments it is true the Socinians differ from others as to the use and end of them And they do differ among themselves about Baptism Socinus did not judge it to be a perpetual Ordinance yet others of the Socinians do use it And in Transylvania as Calo. Socinis profliga p. 851. nius tells us the Socinians do baptize with water and that in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that so it was decreed in a Socinian Synod hold Anno 1636. But as to the Lords Supper I cannot see but they all agree in that and Socinus acknowledges it to be Sacramentum perpetuum Universale Now being this was the judgment of all of them for ought I see as to the use of it however they are erroneous as to the end of it I asked him what was the reason they did not administer that Ordinance He answered Though
Socinus was of that Judgment yet they would follow Socinus no further than they saw cause But for the Sacraments let those who feel the need of them make use of them To wit such a God as they make Christ such Subjects they are to him I thought the Institution and Command of Christ with the worship and honour which is given to Christ had been grounds sufficient to command our obedience if we were attained to such a height of what I cannot tell for Grace I must not call it that we felt no need of his Institutions but it seems his Institution Command and worship in this particular are little with them if they feel any need they may use them Obedience good enough for a Dependent God Now if men can thus dispense already with one part of his worship and throw it by I doubt not but upon the same principle they may cast off the other part of his worship and the Reasons urged by Francken and others of that party are so strong that they will at last prevail with English unsound Christians whom God for the abuse of his Gospel will I fear give up to their own Reason and since Reason they will have Reason they shall have When the Religious worship of Christ is cast off then the Turks will be every way as good Christians as these Socinians for they speak honourably of Christ and acknowledge him to be a great Prophet Bradwardin was a man sound in the Doctrine of the Trinity De Causo Dei P. 29. and the union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ and in other Articles of our Faith And thus he speaks concerning these Articles Scio Philosophe confidenter me scire affirmo quod non est Articulus aliquis magnus vel parvus de substantia fidei Christianae quam Deus non prius multis temporibus ante Fidei hujus exordium per Prophetas solennes velut per quosdam praenuntios revelavit c. non enim est Articulus Fidei Christianae qui etiam Philosopho judice non corrupto non sophistico non protervo sed indifferente solido sobrio veritatis amico efficaciter possit fundari in veteri Testamento in veteribus Prophetiis sicut constat antiquitus veraciter contigisse What kind of Philosophers the Socinians are in Bradwardin's account we may easily judge Afterwards * p. 59. he frames this Argument Whatever God hath revealed and attested that is true But God hath revealed and attested the Christian Faith Therefore The Christian Faith is true The Christian Faith that Bradwardin means is that which the Socinians do oppose then he answers to that which some wanton cavilling Wits might object that he had not demonstrated that God hath revealed this Faith the answer is too long to transcribe The Socinians I see are very angry with Athanasius and look on him as if he were the first Inventer of these Articles of the Trinity and of the Divine and Humane Nature united in the Person of Christ making the world believe if they could that none of the ancient Writers before him were of their Opinions As appears by Mr. Biddle's Quotations out of those Authors whom he labours by the gloss he cast upon them to make them speak his Doctrines against the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity Thus the Socinian Pamphlet lately printed and published by William Pen tells the Reader as I observed the little time I had it in my hand I suppose that Author took it out of Mr. Biddle I shall briefty give the Reader what I find in those Authors which I have but not transcribe all that I find to this purpose For Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians I find not much the occasion of that Epistle did not lead him to speak of the Verson of Christ he contents himself with the phrase of the Apostle calling Christ as the Apostle Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 47. The brightness of his that is Gods of whom he spake before magnificence being so much greater than the Angels as he hath obtained a more excellent Name The Angels are ministring Spirits but to the Son he saith Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee set thou at my right hand c. I think he intends his Divinity in his second Epistle of which only we have a Fragment beginning his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And after pag. 6. speaking of Jesus Christ our Saviour saith of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How far those words are from Christs satisfaction in his first Epistle the Reader may judge p. 64. He gave his blood for us and his flesh for our flesh and his Soul for our Soul And for our Justification which concerns the Socinian Doctrine also We who are called in Christ Jesus p. 41 are justified not by our wisdom understanding piety or works which we have wrought in purity and holiness of heart but by Faith by which the Almighty God hath justified all from the beginning The next are the Epistles which go under the name of Ignatius In his Epistle ad Ephesios ad Magnesianos ad Trallianos ad Romanos ad Philadelphenos in all these Epistles I read Ignatius asserting Christ to be God man and giving warning to the Churches to take heed of those who said he was but meer man I will only write one Sentence out of this last Epistle If any one say there is one God and doth confess Jesus Christ but thinks the Lord to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man and not the only begotten God the Wisdom and word of God what Word he tells us in his Epist ad Magnesianos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thinks he consists only of Body and Soul this is a Serpent and Seducer preaching an error for the perdition of men c. Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. asserts the Divinity of Christ and in his Dialogue with Trypho he often asserts it in so much that Trypho tells him That Christ should be God before the world began and after to be born though not as other men seemed to him not only a Paradox but foolish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnto whom Justin Martyr answers page 267. Irenaeus Adv. Haeres l. 2. cap. 43. comparing man with the Son of God saith to man Thou O man art not one that is not made neither didst thou alwayes coexist with God as did his proper or own Word And in the third book cap 8. thus he writes Never did any Prophets or Apostles call any other God or Lord besides the true and only God To the same purpose he speaks in the ninth Chapter and there Fevardentius in his Animadversions upon the Chapter hath out of several places of Iraeneus shewn how opposite he was to this Doctrine of Mr. Biddle and the Socinians that he declares himself as erroneous in his quoting of Authors as he is in his Opinion Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of Christ