Scriptures others all of it but some Particular Books which pleas'd their Fancies Others own'd other Scriptures never Received by the Church and publickly allow'd and practised Altering the Holy Scriptures which they called Mending of them and some of them said that Christ was begot by Joseph like other Men Nay by their Latudinarian Principles Mahomet himself and his Alcoran must be admitted into their Confederacy who speak more honourably of Christ than the Socinians themselves and deserve the Name of Vnitarians even in their own Sense as much as they can pretend to In the Church of Rome if you will but own Expressly the Authority of their Church to the Height they Assert it you shall be own'd a good Catholick and excused by an Implicit Faith in all other Articles of the Creed tho you be never so ignorant or hold particular Opinions different from the Church So with the Socinians if you will but reject the Consulstantiality of Christ you shall have Liberty to make him a God or a Creature or what you will You may talk of his Eternity his True and Real God-Head His being God of God Light of Light c. They have distinctions for all these And tho they love not nor like the Expressions yet they can make a hard shift with them They can puzzle People's Understandings tho by very foolish and contradictory Arguments How God by his Infinit Power might have bestowed True and Real Divinity upon another and that even from Eternity for what he can do to day he might have done Yesterday and so backwards for ever But then this would have been only a voluntary Act of God and what he did he might not have done if he had so pleased and consequently that this Adopted God tho from Eternity was still a Precarious tho a True and Real God and yet not properly to be called a Creature that is like Finite Things produc'd in time But on the other hand to make another Person Consubstantial that is of the same Nature with God the Father this infers the necessity of a Plurality of Persons in the very Nature of the Godhead and so to be of the Essence of God as Faculties are of the Essence of the Soul so that it could not be a Soul without the Faculties nor a God without the Persons and tho one depends upon another and springs from another yet they are all equally Necessary Co-Eternal and Co-Equal as being all of the same Nature This grows too hard for a Distinction and our Vnitarians as they call themselves will compound for any thing so you keep off from this Consubstantiality And therefore the Christian Church could find no other Criterion to discover the subtle Heresie of these pretended Vnitarians of several Degrees and Classes who tho differing never so widely among themselves yet all join and reckon themselves as Brethren against the most Glorious and most ample Revelations of the ever Blessed Trinity Recorded in the Holy Scriptures of God And whoever refuse this Test cannot be accounted sound in the Christian Faith But where there is unwillingness it will one way or another shew it self and it is easie to distinguish betwixt those Expressions which proceed from a hearty Conviction and those which are taken up out of force and necessity to clear our selves from an Imputation which lies upon Us. This your Dr. discovers pretty plainly in the present Case for being necessitated in a Vindication of himself as to the Doctrin of the Trinity to use the Word Persons he does it as brought to it against his Will very grudgingly and slightly he does pass it over and cannot conceal his Inclination rather to the Distinction used by the Anti-Trinitarian Hereticks to elude those Texts which speak of the Trinity which is that there are three Differences in the Deity which are express'd in Scripture by the three Denominations of Father Son and Holy Ghost and which they allow are spoken of after the manner of Persons as Wisdom is said to build hee House c. But they will not allow them to be truly and properly Persons or different Subsistences but only three several acceptations of the same Person according to the different Manner of his Revealing himself upon several occasions And thus they may make as many Persons in this Sense of theirs as their Fancy pleases to suggest And in this Sense and no other the Dr. is pleased to let the word Persons pass since we must have it tho at the same time he gives it such a stab as shews that he is by no means reconciled to it But take his own words which he gives as his determination of the whole Matter and the utmost to which he will be brought Serm. 2. p. 120. Here then I fix my foot That there are three Differences in the Deity which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost and every where speaks of them as we use to do of three distinct Persons And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should Nicely abstain from using the word Person tho I remember that St Jerom does somewhere desire to be excused from it Thus the Dr. and according to this where he has occasion to name the Three Persons of God he adds to explain himself his own word Differences which he likes better thus p. 122. The Three Differences or Persons in the Divine Nature expressed in Scripture by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost c. and so in other places And here He has fixt his foot you shall have no more of him if you be not pleased with this you must let it alone and trouble him no more about Socinianism Arianism or any of these like Matters But this somewhere of St Jerome's was a strange Quotation for so Grave a Dr. to bring into the Pulpit upon so serious a Subject if he thought it so For I fancy he spoke this with a Smile saying to himself I 'll make this poor Auditory believe that I have a place of St. Jerome under my Thumb to overthrow all this business of different Persons in God which word since they force me to use I 'll be revenged on it But I will not name the Place in St. Jerome for there are Rogues will be Examining of it and put me to a great deal of trouble It will do well enough for a Squib among the Crowd But these poor hopes are vanished for this Dr. has already been taken to task and stands Corrected for this by a much more Learned Person than himself The Author of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book Entituled A Vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity c. Printed 1693. There Chap. 8. p. 265. This Place of St. Jerome is quoted And it is shewn that St. Jerom did not Scruple to use the word Person or desired to be excused as our Author comically words it by way of wit but on the contrary that he did use
the word Person and in the same Sense in this Question which is put upon it by us at this day as one of the distinct Subsistences of the Divine Nature or Substance whom he did own to be Tres Personas Subsistentes But that what scruple he had was concerning the Greek word Hypostasis which yet he did not absolutely reject nor refuse to make use of it but thought it needed some Explanation or rather Caution in the use of it But this Author whatever scruple he may have which he signifies in Hints very plain will not too nicely abstain from the Word Person or any other word since he can make it signify what he pleases only a Difference or a Somewhat or a No-what by a Mental Reservation tho he knows those he disputes with and those he speaks to take it in another sense The great Art of the Socinians is in altering the meaning of Words so that no words almost can bind them And this Dr. does very subtlely recommend their Interpretations of Scripture by bringing them sometimes to prove the Divinity of Christ that so he may take you off the much more strong and full proof which lies in the true and plain meaning of the words For example Serm. 2. p. â—0 He brings Phil. 2 6. c. as a Proof of the Divinity of Christ who being in the Form of God thought it no Robbery to be equal with God But instead of he thought is not Robbery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Dr. would have the Sense to be He did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God tho' it is quite contrary to the words which are literally translated He thought it not Robbery to be equal i. e. He did make himself equal He did not arrogate to himself to be Equal i. e. He did not make himself Equal Senses which are in terms opposite He did says the Text He did not says Dr T. This is the Impudent answer which the Brief History of the Vnitarians gives to this Text and which the Dr. here recommends And he says that that Phrase is used so by Plutarch But he names not the words nor Quotes the Place which he would have done if he had thought it for his purpose For he cannot deny that the words are rightly Translated and they cannot bear two opposite Senses But now to bring himself off from seeming to favour the Socinians in this Intepretation He pretends to prove the Divinity of Christ from it thus Christ did not arrogate to himself to be Equal with God i. e. He made no Ostentation of his Divinity and this the Dr. says He takes to be the true Meaning of that Phrase But it means much more easily That Christ had no Divinity to make Ostentation of that he did not so much as pretend to it or arrogate it to himself By this Socinian Interpretation of the Dr's Here is first a very weak Argument brought for the Divinity of Christ which is the most effectual Method to destroy a Cause Secondly Here is a very strong Argument for his Divinity diverted and eluded For let the Text lie in the plain and Grammatical Interpretation of the words and they are not to be answer'd by the Socinians For if it was no Robbery in Christ to be Equal with God it follows unavoidably That he was True and Real God by Nature F. Let us come now to the other great point of Socinianism the Doctrine of Satisfaction They deny that the Death of Christ was a Satisfaction paid to the Justice of God for our Sins for the Dr. has Clear'd himself in this Point likewise C. He hath Clear'd himself indeed not only to have been but still to continue a rank Socinian in this Point even where he endeavours most to make a shew as if he were come off it He mumbles it like Thistles For tho the Great point be the Satisfying God's Justice Yet he is so very Careful to avoid coming upon that Question That he names it but once in all those 4 Sermons And that after such a manner as plainly discovers that he is still of the Opinion he told us in his Sermon of Hell of which he says there is no Certainty Because there was no need of any Satisfaction to Gods Justice at all And that God's Justice is to be Consider'd no otherwise than as a Politiâ—uâ— to secure his Government and therefore does not infer any punishment of Sinners But that his threats may be only in Terrorem or so far to be inflicted as may secure his Government from the Rebellion and Vsurpation of wicked Men. As if God were afraid of being Deposed by them A strange Notion of the Justice of God! But this New Doctrin of making Hell precarious does totally overthrow the Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ and plucks it up Root and Branch For if there be no certainty of a Hell there can be no Necessity of Satisfaction for Sins which this means are remitted without it But your Author thinks to put us off with a Complement in this matter Serm. 4. p. 211. He says that this way of Remitting Sins by the Death of Christ was a way indeed very Honourable to the Justice of God and the Authority of his Laws And this is every word he says as to the Justice of God in all these 4 Sermons He comes off like a Courtier I confess and will let it be very Honourable for God that is Civil if we would let alone any Arguments as to what the Nature of Justice requires which makes it more than Honourable even Necessary That a full and adequate Satisfaction be made to Justice otherwise Justice can be no more Justice and God is no more Justice Besides it will appear that if there was no necessity of satisfying Justice it was not only not very Honourable in God but even not reconcileable to any Notion we can have of Justice to take the life of an Innocent Person without any necessity in the world F. You are a sort of People hard to be pleas'd Therefore this good Dr. in Compliance to your Infirmity and because indeed he has treated very slightly of the Satisfaction in these 4 Sermons he has since preached a Sermon before the Queen at White-hall 9th of April 93. upon Heb. 9.29 on purpose Cencerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ and it is publish'd by Her Majesties Special Command and was put into the Gazette C. All this Honour had his Sermon of Hell above told of which we have formerly discours'd at large and this shall have as fair dealing from me to be Impartially and honestly examin'd without any Flattery First therefore I will shew the most Barbarous Absurd and Blasphemous Notion he has of the Christian Religion in General And then as to the Doctrine of Satisfaction that he is Expresly Socinian His Notion of the Christian Religion in these first Four and this single Sermon express'd did I confess amaze me beyond any thing
upon him the Nature of Man and not the Person of any Man that he might make Satisfaction for Mankind and not only for any particular Person Hence he took all our Natural but none of our Personal Infirmities He was subject to Sleep Weariness Grief Pain and even Death all which are incident to our Nature But not to Sickness Blindness Lameness or any Personal infirmities Since therefore it was necessary that our Redeemer must be God-Man I think it will follow that it could be none other but Christ Again I think this Question is decided Matth. 26.39 where Christ prays That if it were possible that Cup might pass from him Which shews that it was not possible for him to accomplish the Redemption of Man which he had undertaken without suffering death Otherwise no doubt God wou'd not have refused the Petition of his Well beloved Son And it is no impeachment of the Wisdom of God to say there was no other way possible But on the contrary it is carrying the notion of Wisdom to the utmost height that when there was but one possible way Wisdom should find it out And the Dr. himself stumbles upon this unawares it is hard to be constant in Error which is it self all unconstancy p. 10 of single Serm. he said That nothing less than the perfect Innocency and Holiness of him who was to be a Sacrifice for us could have explated the guilt of our sins and purchas'd eternal Redemption for us Secondly Great Sufferings likewise in our nature even to the suffering of Death were requisit to the perfect expiation of Sin I say even to the suffering of Death These are the Doctor 's words From whence I argue That none had perfect Innocency and Holiness but God and therefore that none but He COVLD have Explated the Guilt of our Sins Secondly The Sufferings for Explating the Guilt of our Sins must be in our Nature therefore the Expiator must be likewise Man Thirdly These Sufferings must be even unto Death From all which it follows that none cou'd be this Expiator but Christ God and Man and that he must Suffer even unto Death If all which be true then I desire the Dr. to answer his own Objection and tell us how it was possible for the Redemption of Man to have been effected any other way I would recommend to him his own Advice upon this very matter Serm. 4th p. 181. which he says he follows All along to take the express Declarations or at least the pregnant Intimations of Scripture for his Ground and Guide it being always safest to take the Reasons of the Divine Counsels and Actions from God himself Now we wou'd gladly know for he has no where told us in what place of Scripture it is reveal'd that God's sending his Son and all the Aeconomy of the Gospel was to Gratifie and Indulge the Senseless and Wicked Prejudices which Men had pick'd up concerning Religion For that is the account the Dr. gives us of his Faith And it is more Monstrous by far than any ever I heard set up even by the Socinians themselves Yet the Dr. does not forsake them tho' he thus advances sometimes in stretches beyond them For single Serm. p 21. He sets up in express terms the account the Socinians give of the Remission of Sins by Christ viz. That it was not upon account of any Satisfaction made by Christ for our sins but only an Arbitrary Covenant they cannot tell why which God made with Christ that if he wou'd be Crucified God wou'd remit the sins of the Penitent And that there was no need nor necessity for this Covenant because God might have remitted sins as well without this Covenant or upon any other Covenant the turning of a Straw or what you will or upon no Covenant at all So that this Covenant with Christ was wholly Causeless Needless and Arbitrary The same Socinian Covenant this Author sets up in the page above quoted where he says That upon the Sufferings of Christ God thereupon entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind wherein he engag'd himself to forgive the sins of these who Believe and Repent Thus this Author holds with the Socinians by excluding the Satisfaction from being any part of the Covenant or consider'd at all in it F. You wou'd make one think it strange how the Dr. came to Preach and Publish such a Sermon as this with a design against the Socinians C. It was really to do them service And reconcile Men more to their principles by lessening the Differences which are conceiv'd betwixt them and us a Topick much in practice with the Jesuits in their Disputes with the Protestants as Mahomet went to the Mountain which wou'd not come to him which he makes so small as to consist in nothing but words p. 32. to signifie just nothing p. 31. For an account of this you will find pp. 16. 31. and 32. He sums up the difference 'twixt the Socinians and us as to the Doctrine of Satisfaction to consist only in this That the Socinians say Christ suffered for us or for our Sake whereas others wou'd have it understood that Christ suffered for us that is in our stead Which the Dr. proves p. 32. to be a meer Controversie about words And so the matter is shortly reconcil'd which has so much taken up the Christian Church And that very undeservedly and uncharitably if the difference be no more than this Author wou'd have us believe Out of Friendship to which Party is easie to discover for he has turn'd the Doctrine of Satisfaction which is the whole of this Controversie to be no part of the Controversie and indeed without it all the rest is a Contest about words and he wou'd make you believe that there is more betwixt the Socinians and Vs than whether Christ died for our Sake or in our Stead which he says are the same Having thus cleverly brought off his belov'd Socinians Witness the sweet and gentle Epithets of Brutal False Nonsence c. which in one page of the History of the Vnitarians p. 24. are bestow'd on us That our Faith is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self Impossible inexcusable and that not to disern it is not to be a Man Ibid. Besides many other the like Endearing Complements in other places As Impudent Blasphemous and even Diabolical and Idolatrous Polytheisme Depths of Satan Thus they call the Christian Doctrine which we profess he no longer conceals his Dear and Intimate Affection to them He prefers them before all sorts of Men in the World and says 2 Serm. p. 72. That even the Protestant the Popish nay the very Jesuits themselves are in Comparison of them but meer Scolds and Bunglers And p. 70 71. He says To do right to the Writers on that side The Socinians I must own generally they are a Pattern of the fair way of Disputing and of Depating matters of Religion without Heat and unseemly
he may bid fair to Pervert the whole Nation he has deeply poysoned them already And if this be not a time to speak we may for ever after hold our Tongue He that would not in this Case expose his Life and all that he had would never do it for any Cause of Christ for the Ax was never laid more palpably at the very Root of all Christianity I hope what I have said will at least provoke abler Pens to Engage in Defence not only of Christianity but of the first Principles and Foundation of Religion in General which the Hobbiss have depress'd far below that of the Heathen who acknowledg'd Divine Revelation tho' they mistook it But these make it a perfect Tool and Engine of State hung at the Belt of the Civil Magistrate and disposeable by him at his pleasure These are yet more dangerous more affronting to God than the Socinians For the Socinians argue tho from a false Topick for the Honour of God as if more Persons were Dishonourable to the Divine Nature But these dare Blasphemously to make God an Ape to the Devil himself and to be beholding to his Imvention and the Capricio's of Foolish and Wicked Men for all the Institutions of his Holy Religion and to have sent our Lord Christ into the World and Sacrificed Him upon the Cross for no other End than to comply with the wickedness of Men and instead of destroying the works of the Devil infinitely to out-do them to put them out of Countenance and make them asham'd of their Littleness in Sacrificing Beasts and Men instead of which poor Butcheries and Murther and to make them no more regarded Here the Son of God shall be murthered to shew how little mischief the Devil could do in Comparison of God! And to frighten and amaze Mankind the most wicked of them and to stop their hand from the further pursuit of their little Insignificant Cruelties to one another by being struck with the horror of such Super-wickedness and unnatural Barbarity As the K. of Moab Sacrificed his Eldest Son to stop the pursuit of his Enemies 2 Kings 3.27 by over glutting their Revenge and out-doing their Cruelty These are not Tares Sown in the Night and by Stealth But it is Rooting up all Revealed Religion in the Noon-day and exposing of Christianity to the Contempt and Buffoonery of Atheistical Wits And if the Husbandmen take no no notice of it They are not Asleep but Dead God awaken them by a timely sense of their Duty and not by a Total Extirpation and Removeal of their Candlestick Amen Some REFLECTIONS upon the Second of Dr. BURNET's Four Discourses concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ Printed 1694. I Had ended the Reader 's Labour and my own but that I am call'd back by a Book now lately Published Licensed by this Great Dr. Himself Jo. Cant. to give it the greater Authority and wrote by his Collegue Dr. Burnst now called Bishop of Sarum It is Entituled Four Discourses delivered to the Clergy of the Diocess of Sarum c. Printed 1694. One of these Discourses is Concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ wherein there is such a Notion of Christ's Divinity set down as would make any Christian Ear to tingle He gives the very same account of it as the Brief History of the Vnitarians in Answer to John 1.14 The Word was made Flesh that is says that Socinian Author the Word dwelt in or did Inhabit the Person of Jesus Christ There is none that is unprejudiced but must see how very far this is from the full Import of that Text and what a force is done to the words of the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made Flesh This is sure a degree beyond bare Inhabitation It is true our Soul may be said to dwell in our Body But there is something more It is Impersonated with our Body whence there arises what the Schools call Communicatio Idiomatum between the Soul and the Body That is that the Properties of each are attributed to the Person who partakes of Both. Thus Man is called Mortal because his Body is such and Immortal because his Soul is such And thus it is that Christ is called God in respect to his Divine Nature and Man in respect to his Human. Neither of these can be predicated of the other The Divine Nature is not the Human Nature nor the Human Nature the Divine The Soul is not the Body nor the Body the Soul But each of these is predicated of the Person who partakes of Both. All the Atiributes of the Divine and Properties of Human Nature are predicated of Christ as all Properties of Soul and Body are predicated tho' not of One another yet of Man who is made up of Both. This is the true Notion of Impersonation and without this Christ could never be made Flesh The Spirit of God did Inhabit or Inspire the Apostles Prophets and Holy Men of Old and will do every Saint or Holy Person to all Eternity But this does not make God to become Flesh If you answer that the Spirit of God or the Word as the Socinians say did inhabit or inspire that Man Jesus Christ in an Higher Degree than other Men That will make nothing as to the Word 's becoming Flesh God was no more Flesh in Abraham or St. Paul than in the Meanest Saint tho' he inspired one much more than another Nothing short of Impersonation could make him to become Flesh or make that Flesh Adorable without the highest Idolatry Dr. B. thinks to solve all this by comparing God's Indwelling in Jesus to the Indwelling of God in the Cloud of Glory in the Temple and he says p. 127. That the Jews worshipped the Cloud of Glory because of God's Resting upon it and therefore that they could make no Objection to the Christians Worshipping of Christ by vertus of the Indwelling of the Eternal word in Him Make no Objection Yes sure and Retort the Argument to the Confusion of such Christians For they did not worship the Cloud of Glory That had been Rank Idolatry Notwithstanding of any Inhabitation of God there and therefore from this Reasoning it must have been Idolatry to have worshipped Christ notwithstanding of any Inhabitation of God in him Nor will it solve this that the Dr. says p. 116. That there was a more perfest Indwelling of God in Christ than in the Cloud So there was in the Cloud more than in the Temple yet it had been as great Idolatry to have worshiped the Cloud as the Temple God's Presence was never more visibly exhibited in any Apparition under the Law than when he descended upon Mount Hereb in Fire Cloud c. He spoke out of that Fire with an Audible Vâ—ice which he did not out of the Cloud of Glory in the Temple And yet he strictly forbids the worshipping of any thing they there saw or the making any Resemblance or Similitude of any thing that there appeared lest it should
these forms in which he appeared into his own Person for then wou'd have follow'd the Communicatio Idiomatum such Fire or Body in which he appear'd would have been truly and Really God and God wou'd have been that Fire or that Body which as it is Blasphemy to affirm so this shews us a stricter Notion of Impersonation than the Dr. sets up which is only the Minds Commanding and Governing of matter In which Sense God must be Impersinated with every Body in the World for he Commands and Governs them Absolutely and he Inhabits and Dwells in every one of them for in Him they have their Being The Dr. in his Vindicatory Letter to Dr. Williams before Quoted p 99. adds further That this indwelling is a vital one like that of the Souls dwelling in the Body and not an assisting one like Inspiration or the Gift of Tongues or Miracles But this will not hinder the Consequence above told For in God we Live and Move as well as have our Being in Him Acts. 17.28 Therefore He may be even a VITAL Indwelling and yet short of Impersenation He says That this Indwelling of the Word in Christ is LIKE that â—f the Souls dwelling in the Body It may be like it but not of the same sort Every like we say is not the same He says above in the same page That the Vnion of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ is represented in Scripture as the Compounding one Person as much as in other Men the Vnion of Soul and Body makes one Man This indeed is fairly said if it be as sincerely intended For if this be so there must follow the Communitio Idiomatum betwixt the Divine and Human Natures in Christ as much as betwixt the Soul and Body of Man Which the Dr. will not allow For if he allow'd this there cou'd be no Cause of Dispute And if he had thought thus he cou'd never have explain'd it by the Indwelling of God in the Cloud nor found any scruple against the word Person nor have been forc'd to new and uncouth Expositions of Personality Nor wou'd he have made a Distinction as before told betwixt the Man-hoed of Christ or the Man Christ being advanc'd into God as the Athanasian Creed expresses it or the Communicating Divine Honour to Him as Dr. Burnet words it p. 120. of his Discourse above Quoted I say if he had Really and Truly believ'd the Impersonation of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ as the Soul and Body are Impersonated in Man as he would seem to speak in his Vindication he could not have made a Distinction between Christ's Assumption into an High Dignity or the Communicating Divine Honour to Him and betwixt the Dwelling of the Eternal Word Bodily in him For if by Bodily here he had meant a Bedily Impersonation as betwixt MANS Soul and Body then that Man CHRIST had not only Divine Honour Communicated to Him which the Dr. denies by the Indwelling of the Word but He Himself was the Word But the Dr's true meaning is that the Bodily dwelling of the Word in the Man Christ was only a dwelling in his Body without Impersonation or Communicating His Divine Attributes to Him and therefore that no Divine Honour was thereby Communicated to Him which the Dr. asserts as above Quoted in the 120th p. of his Discourse And instead of correcting this in his Vindication he re-asserts it more positively in another as he thinks more odious Form of words For there p. 96. He puts the Case of a Mans being made a God and that was so called and was to be worshipped as such And this he calls a new Doctrine that it seems says he scarce conceivable how any one can entertain this and yet retain any value for Religion I must confess says he I cannot and it is so natural for a Man to judge of others by himself that I do not think others do it or indeed can do it These are his words And by this it is very plain that he does not think the Man Christ to be God or that Christ is God and Man but only God in Man And consequently that there is no Hypostatical that is Personal Union betwixt the Divine and Human Nature of Christ as there is betwixt the Soul and Body in Man For if there were then the Communicatio Idiomatum must necessarily follow that is the Properties or Attributes of each of their Natures would belong to the Person who did partake of both And the Man Christ would be as truly God as he was Man And as for the Dr's Bug-bear word of a Man's being made Gods with which he thinks to frighten us as if God could be made let him know that there are none so absurd as to think that God can be made and that this is not the same thing as a Man's being made God because tho' the God-head cannot be made and in that Sense nothing can be made God yet a Man by being taken into a Personal Union with God becomes really God as much as the Body becomes a Man by its Personal Union with an Human Soul Notwithstanding of which Vnion the two different Natures of Body and Soul remain nothing the less distinct and Unconfounded in themselves and in their several Properties Incommunicable to each other tho' all equally Predicated of the same Person who partakes of both Natures And therefore Dr. Burnet by this Phrase in this place does plainly declare against the Divinity of Christ and that he neither does nor can believe it Nay he Ridicules it and Blasphemes it in setting up the Notion of a Man that was made a God And tho' as he says p. 99. The Vnion of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ irrepresented in Scripture as the compounding one Person as much as in other Men the Vnion of Soul and Body makes one Man He must mean by this only that this was a Comparison or Representation used in Scripture whereby the Dwelling of the Word in Christ was in some manner shadowed out or represented not that it was strictly so For if he had thought it strictly so that the Divine and Human Natures in Christ were as much Impersonated as Soul and Body in other Men he would never have made it an absurdity that a Man was made God more than that the matter of a Man's Body is made a Man or part of the Person of a Man He could never have stumbled upon such broad Blasphemy as to say That no Divine Honour was Communicated to Christ and that he was not our Lord by an Assumption into an High Dignity as before quoted Hence we must learn how to understand many of his Plausible sayings as thus p. 127. of his Discourse where having Explain'd Personality as above told to mean no more than a Power in the Soul to Command and Govern the Body he brings in a Plausible Sentence for the Personal Union of the Divine and Human Natures in Christ but yet with a
opened not his Mouth But it is never too late to mend And if he be not now Pray God he may be a good Christian before he dies For I must confess I do not think it sufficiently Evinc'd in these Sermons In the Reading of which the Character which the History of the Vnitarians gives tho' falsly of Grotius came into my Mind wherein he endeavours to make Grotius a tho'ro'-pac'd Socinian but yet to have cover'd his Meaning so craftily particularly in his Comments upon this First Chapter of St. John's Gospel whence this Author has taken his Text as not to be known to be a Socinian unless to a very discerning Reader And I must observe that this Author in the foresaid 4 Sermons tho' he seems to speak home sometimes yet has taken special Care to avoid the only Shibboleth which the Christian Church could find out to discover the several Sorts of Arian and other Hereticks who deny'd the Divinity of Christ which was Consubstantiality That God the Son was of the same Substance with his Father Several of them for there were several Subdivisions of them and of different Opinions would allow Christ to be of the like Substance with the Father That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same Substance And except the single Iota which is betwixt these two Words they could swallow the whole Nicene Creed by vertue of Distinctions in which they were great Masters And it is very strange that this Author should forget this only Matterial Word which is the heart of the whole Cause and expresly asserted in the Nicene Creed especially considering that Sermon 3. p. 140 141. he quotes the words in that Creed immediately following these Being of one Substance with the Father which words he does not mention and which being own'd by him would have been a more clear and full Vindication of his Orthodoxy in this point than all these 4 Sermons And since it was impossible he should forget it he repeating the same Sentence in the Creed wherein it is contain'd we must conclude that be left it out on purpose and consequently That he does not really believe it tho' he endeavours with all his Art to cast a Mist before the Reader 's Eyes in other Expressions which to some might seem Tantamount as Arius and his Followers did Even our Modern Biddle in his Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity Printed in the Year 1648. and now reprinted in the Year 1691. Artic. 3. Confesses Christ to be Our Lord yea Our God and yet in the same Article asserts That he hath no other than a Human Nature But he was a Senseless Socinian tho' now much Admir'd amongst them in London and his Books carefully reprinted He Refin'd from the Socinians and added to it the Old Anthropomorphite Heresie That God was a Body of the Shape of a Man Fingers Eyes Toes c. As the Socinians refin'd from the Arians and gave the Son of God no Existence before his Birth of the Virgin and have exceedingly Entangled their Cause by it The Arians were more Subtle and Learned than any of their Folloâ—ers who have grafted upon their Stock It was hard to discover the depth of Arianism They defended themselves with Nice distinctions They would call the Son God yea Truly and Really God As this Author confesses 2 Serm. p. 123. And what plainer or fuller words could readily be desired wherein to confess the true and real Divinity of Christ in opposition to Angels and to Men who are called Gods but it is only in a Figurative and Borrowed Sense They are not truly and really God as the Arians said of Christ F. The Author in the same Sentence explains himself and those whom he calls his Adversaries whether Arians or Socinians who say that Christ is truly and really God by adding these words by Office and by Divine Appointment and Constitution C. That is a very vain Distinction For a God by Office or any other way so he be truly and really God is as great as a God by Nature because nothing can be greater than God Besides a God by Office if he be truly and really God must likewise be a God by Nature for he could not otherwise be Truly and Really God as he could not be truly and really Man who were not a Man by Nature or who did not truly and really partake of the Nature of Man And as a Consequence of all this the Author tells ibid. That our Adversaries did allow the very same Honour and Worship to be given to the Truly and Really God tho' by Office which we give to him who is God by Nature And as these Adversaries could not be found out by the word GOD which they freely allow'd to Christ no not by the words Truly and Really God So neither could the word Eternity fully discover them viz. To assert Christ to have been from Eternity We know several Adversaries to Christianity who have asserted the World to have been from Eternity and yet would not allow it to be God It is part of the Muggletonian Creed at this day that Earth and Water were from Eternity and yet not God A Book call'd The Oracles of Reason by that Execrable Char. Blount Mr. Gildon and others of Hâ—bb's wretched Disciples does argue expresly for the Eternity of the World and of Mankind too in the same State they are in now This is printed for our Instruction in the Year 1693. as one Branch of our Glorious Reformation and Christian Toleration And if these Wits allow Eternity to meer Men much less would these Socinians stick to call Christ Eternal who own him to be truly and really God For whatever is so must be Eternal Therefore as I said before there was no Shibboleth which all these our Adversaries did refuse but that of Consubstantiality and which this Author does refuse and while he does so he must still be reckoned among these Adversaries to the Christian Cathelick Faith Tho' Tho among what particular Species or Denomination of them I will not determine or whether he may not have refin'd to a degree and Peculiarity by himself for he delights in Bold Stroaks Mr. Biddle above told is own'd by the Socinians as a good and laudable Brother tho he set up the Old and Exploded Heresie of the Athropomorphites And the Arians are admitted into their Communion and as such quoted and pleaded by them against the Orthodox tho they held the Prae-Existence of Christ before his Incarnation which the Socinians have rejected Among whom some even at this day hold the Personality of the Word and Holy Ghost which others of them do absolutely deny Some of them make these to be Creatures others to be Really and Truly God and not any thing different from God Nay the Old Nazarens Ebionites c. are in the Brief Hist of the Vnitar Quoted as the Primitive Fathers of the Socinian Opinion some of whom rejected the
see whether this Author gives a more favourable Character of his Disciples to make good the High Eulogiums above told Serm. 2. p. 69. speaking of Schlictingius one of the first Form in his School our Author says he carry'd himself with more Confidence but much less Decency than his Master That he spoke so Extravagantly and with so much Contempt of these Great and Venerable Names who were the chief Propagators of Christianity in the World and to whom all Ages do so justly pay a Reverence That he said those Ancient Interpreters went so far from the Apostles meaning as if they had Rav'd and been out of their Wits And the Dr. says in general of the Socinians Serm. 1st p. 39. That their Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures were strange and extravagant p. 44. did contradict not only the Ancient Fathers but the General Consent of all Christians for 1500 years together p. 61. That they avoid the plain and necessary Consequence of Holy Scriptures by strain'd and forc'd Arts of Interpretrtion p. 62. Than which nothing can be more unnatural and violent p. 65. Which I dare say no Indifferent Reader of St. John that had not been preposess'd and byas'd by some violent prejudice would ever have thought of p. 75. The plainest Text for any Article of Faith how Fundamental and Necessary sâ—ever may by the same Arts and ways of Interpretation be cluded and rendered utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it p. 92. 93. This is so Arbitrary and Precarious a supposition that I must confess my self a little out of Countenance for them that Men of so much Wit and Reason should ever be put to so sorry and pitiful a Shift p. 96. This is so Inartificial not to say Absurd a way of avoiding a Difficulty that no Man of common Ingenuity would make use of it p. 99. A Sense so very flat that I can hardly abstain from calling it Ridiculous p. 113. We may plainly see by this That they can Interpret a Text right when necessity forceth them to it and they cannot without great Inconveniency to their Cause avoid it But when Men have once resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion they have taken up it then becomes not only Convenient but Necessary to understand nothing that makes against it And this is truly the present Case But in the mean time where is Ingenuity and love of Truth p. 115. They Triumph without Modesty and without Measure p. 125. Do they see no Absurdity in all this Nothing that is contrary to Reason and Good Sense Nothing that feels like Inconsistency and Contradiction p. 129. Which way the Socinians way of dealing with them the Holy Scriptures seems to be really more Contumelious to those Holy Oracles than the down-right rejecting of their Authority And single Serm. p. 18. He that can deny this the Doctor 's Argument against the Socinians is perverse to the highest degree and I fear beyond the possibility of being Convicted p. 20. Men may generally wrangle about any thing but what a frivolous Contention what a Trifling in serious matter what Barretry in Divinity is this p. 30. So little do Men in the heat of Dispute and Opposition who are resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion in despight of Reason and Good Sense consider that they do many times in effect and by necessary Consequence grant the very thing in express terms they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny p. 32. And this for no other reason that I can imagine but because they have deny'd it so often and so long F. These so different Characters which the Dr. gives of Socinus and the Socinians may be Reconciled by saying as I suppose the Dr. means that this later Evil Character belongs to them only in this present Controversy of the Trinity the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ But that the former High and most Extraordinarly Excellent Character is due to them in other matters of Religion as against the Church of Rome which the Dr. seems to intend 2. Serm. p. 79. where he says That the Socinian Writers have managed the Cause of the Reformation against the Innovations and Corruptions of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practise with great acuteness and advantage C. And yet in the very next words he says That the Socinians have put into their the Papists hands better and sharper Weapons than ever they had before for the weakening and undermining of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures And p. 129. That nothing hath given a greater force to the Exceptions of the Church of Rome against the Holy Scriptures being a sufficient and certain Rule of Faith than the uncertainty into which they the Socinians have brought the plainest Texts imaginable for the Establishing of Doctrines of the greatest Moment in the Christian Religion by their Remote and Wrested Interpretations of them And p. 124. That to avoid the shaddow and appearance of a Plurality of Deities they ran readily into it And into downright Idolatry Now how invalidating the Holy Scriptures and introducing Idolatry is managing the Cause of the Reformation with Accuteness and Advantage against the Church of Rome I leave to the Worthy Dr. to Explain And likewise how Men can deserve such extravagant Commendations for Wit and Modesty and all Discretion and Temper in one point of Controversy and in another to be quite void of all these to fall into all Ridiculous Absurdities and Contradictions and to manage either without Reason or Modesty to be so Wedded to their own Opinion as rather to Renounce the Holy Scriptures than endure to be convinced by them in their most foolish and groundless Errors taken up against the whole Christian World since the days of Christ. Modesty and Sweetness in a-Mans Temper will shew it self in all his Actions And a strong Reason cannot overlook a Contradiction in one case more than another at least not to be obstinately so Wedded to it as to be deaf to all Conviction But we have spent too much time upon this Author's Character of these Socinians which is not material otherwise than to shew his own Unconstancy and Inconsistency with himself How unwillingly he is brought to appear against them And what Salvoes and Shifts he makes use of to make them understand him That he might not lose their Favour God grant Him and Them true Conviction and Save Unstable Souls from their Snares POSTSCRIPT SInce this was wrote the Author before spoke of Dr. T. has Printed A Sermon concerning the Vnity of the Divine Nature and the B. Trinity And here if ever we might expect full Satisfaction in this point But it is so far from it that of all the others we have consider'd this Sermon does most palpably bewray his wretched Socinianism if not something worse for he not only speaks the very Socinian Language of the Trinity but he really undermines the Vnity of God by his setting it up upon a Foundation which he himself in this same Sermon quite overthrows
His great Proof is p. 10. The General Consent of Mankind concerning the Unity of God that the Vnity of the Divine Nature is a Notion wherein the Greatest and the Wisest part of Mankind did always agree p. 4. And yet speaking of the Heathen Idolatry which was all the rest of the World except the small Nation of the Jews he says plainly p. 9. that The generality were grosly guilty both of believing more Gods and of worshiping false Gods p. 10. And did terminate their worship there in the Idol as being the very Deity it self which was certainly says he the Case of the greatest part of the Heathen World And yet upon the Belief of this Greatest part he builds the Vnity of God when he confesses that this Greatest part did not believe the Vnity of God All the Salvo for this most palpable Contradiction is what he offers p. 9. viz. That the Vnity of the Divine Nature was the Primitive and General Belief of Mankind and that Polytheism and Idolatry were a Corruption and Degeneracy from the Original Notion which Mankind had concerning God I do not doubt but Adam worshiped the True God And it is as true that Idolatry came in very soon some say Cain introduc'd it And that there was a very great defection so quickly made that it is Recorded of the Birth of Enos That then began Men to call upon the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.29 as if they had never done it before And the Scripture tells of the General Corruption before the Flood After the Flood we know the whole World was swallow'd up in an Vniversal Idolatry except only the Family of Abraham and after him of the Jews who also were continually lapsing into it what then becomes of this Author's Greatest part of Mankind And his always That this Greatest part did always agree in the Notion of the Vnity of God Whereas he in the same place makes this Greatest part to have been always since the World was Peopled Believers and Worshipers of more Gods and false Gods in such gross Idolatry as I cannot believe ever befel one Man since Adam or that it is possible to besal any Man being so apparent a Contradiction viz. to terminate our Worship in the Image or Idol as being the very Deity it self For how can any Man believe such a thing to be the Image or Picture of another thing and yet to be that very thing of which it is the Image Or is it in any Man's power to believe that a thing can be the Image or Idol of its self Cou'd Solomon believe this Or was not he an Idolater We know whom this favours and there may be a time to Recant even our Nestrum against Transubstantion It won'd be no greater change than what has been already And there is no stop in Art nor are we ever too old to learn Thus much for his betraying the Unity of God by placing it upon a Foundation which he himself hath overthrown Next to shew that as to the Trinity of God he speak the very Socinian Language All that he says of it is in Sect. 3. p. 19 20. Because he must say something He is soon weary of it and first he gives a Broad-side against it in direct Opposition to what the Divines say of it He desires not or deserves not to be reckon'd one of the number for the Dispute is not about the words Trinity or Person but as to the Sense of these words in which they are used by Divines The Socinians own a Trinity and they have lately Re-printed and Published Bidle's Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity But all the matter is in what Sense the word Trinity is us'd by our Divines and by the Socinians and in this he peremptorily determines against the Sense of the Divines as Anti-Scriptural He says That neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the Sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery are any where to â—e met with in Scripture This is directly opposing the Doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Divines Put he brings himself off thus Yet it cannot be deny'd says he but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost this no Socinian in the World denies in whose Name every Christian is Baptized this is likewise granted by the Socinians and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture Attributed Neither does this offend the Secinians who Plead the same in answer to Jâ—hn 1.3 as you have it in the Brief Hâ—â—â—ory of the Vnitarians which solves that Text All things were made by him i. e. by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word thus The word says he begins here to be spoken of as a Person by the the same figure of Speech That Solomon saith Wisdom hath hath builded her House and heuen out her seven Pillars Prov. 9.1 And that David calls Gods Commandments Councellours Psal 119.24 And in conclusion this Author is willing to Compound for the word Person of which we have spoke before So long says he as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words But he has told you before that there is no such thing to be found in Scripture in the sense in which it is used by Divines And what other sense he means is easie to tell For the present Controversie is only betwixt the two senses of the Divines as he calls them and the Socinians unless he means something else by the word Divines and so makes the whole a Banter upon us For he does not explain himself nor say one word more in all that Sermon touching the Blessed Trinity of the difference ' twxit the Socinians and us concerning this great Fundamental of our Faith And whether this be or whether it be not a sufficient clearing of himself as to what side he inclines when he could find no more to say against the Socinians upon this point in a Discourse which he Entitles and so would make us believe to be A Vindication of the Christian Doctrines to the Blessed Trinity against that of the Socinians I leave to the Impartial Reader And now for a Conclusion upon the whole that has been said of all his Sermons they are all the Genuine effects of Hobbism which loosens the Notions of Religion takes from it all that is Spiritual Ridicules whatever is called Supernatural it reduces God to Matter and Religion to Nature In this School Dr. T. has these many years held the First Form and now diffuses his Poyson from a high Station It is many years ago since the E. of D. one Sunday that Dr. T. Preach'd at White-Hall told K. C. 2d that Mr Hâ—bbs was got into the Pulpit his Politicks are Leviathan and his Religion is Latitudinarian which is none that is nothing that is positive but against every thing that is positive in other Religions whereby to reduce
is a Natural Duty and because it is so Six Sermons Prined together 1694. Serm. 3. Concerning the Education of Children p. 103. of a mere necessary and indispensable Obligation than any positive Precept of Revealed Religion Now the Belief of Christ is nothing else but a positive Precept of Revealed Religion Christ is the only truly Revealed Religion God never Revealed any other For the Gospel was Preach'd to the Jews as well as unto us Heb. 4.2 The Law and the Prophets taught Christ to come as the Gospel shewed him when he was come From the first Revelation of him Gen. 3.15 to the end of the World it is the same Gospel the same Christ that is Revealed And Dr. T. even since he came to Cant has Printed it and Published it to all the World that he thinks a Womans Nursing her own Child is more necessary than the Belief of Christ and of more Indispensible Obligation And his poor Reason because it is a Natural Duty will advance every Passion or Vice that we think to be Natural above all the Commands of God in Scripture We know what sins the Libertines do plead for as Natural and they think that Marriage which is but a Positive Precept ought not to supersede the Natural Freedom These Men measure Good and Evil by their present corrupted Nature and thereby give their Lusts the Ascendent and a Superior Authority to the Written Word of God By which means they have shaken themselves loose from all Discipline of Religion But what they know Naturally as Brute Beasts Jude 10. in those things they corrupt themselves What our Nature was before the Fall we cannot nâ—w tell And that only can be truly called Natural that is what was agreeable to our Nature in its Purity and in its Perfection not now in its Broken and Corrupted Condition Which is therefore much more safely conducted by unerrable Revelation from God than to have those Sacred Oracles over-rul'd and superseded by our very Fallible Notions of Nature which every Man may make to mean what he pleases For what is counted very vile and abominable in some Nations is practised without scruple among other People and thought very Natural and therefore very Good Nay a Man may think that to be Natural to day which to morrow he may think quite otherwise Which shews the Fallibility of this Rule Even this great Natural Dr. himself in the Reign of K. C. 2d thought at least Preached it before the K. that Sedition and Rebellion Perfidiousness and Perjury were contrary to the Natural Notions 3d Vol. of his Serm. 3d Serm. upon 1 John 4.1 p. 76. 77. and therefore that no Revelation was to be credited which did but Allow of them no not tho' even Miracles were done in confirmation of any such Revelation And yet this notwithstanding he justified the Present Revolution from the visible Finger of God in it Thanksgiving Serm. for our Deliverance by the P. of O. p. 68. 69. 70 71 72. and the plain Signatures and Characters of a more immediate Divine Interpositon Such as the uncertainty of the Weather the Infatuation of the Jesuits Councils and other such like Signatures of a Divine Interposition which he mentions And from such Miraculous Interpositions he Justifiers those whom he calls The Worthies of our Nation who Deserted Betray'd and took Arms against K. James So that we find the Doctors Nature and his Natural Notions vary'd in a very little time and upon a small variation of Circumstances insomuch that what one day he would not trust to Revelation or Miracles for the next day the turning of the Wind shall be Argument sufficient For some Mens Notions of what is Natural are suited to what they find agreeable to their Nature that is to their Ease their Convenience or sometimes to their Lusts and Pleasures or even their Resentments and basest Passions I would not here be misunderstood as if I meant to Decry all Natural Religion and Reason No doubt there is such a Light imprinted in our Nature by God But it is much darkened since to Fall and needs the assistance of Revelation to direct our way to Heaven And it ought to be subservient to Revelation which is all I plead for and not set up against it and prefer'd before it as this Dr. and others of his Principles have rashly done I compare our Natural Light or Knowledge to the Creation of the First Day And it is the Light of the First Day which we enjoy still But not as it was that day Created It was Regulated and Modeled the Fourth Day into the Sun Moon and Stars And now we have no Participation at all of the Light of the First Day but what we have from its Regulation on the Fourth Day and conveyed to us from the Sun Which I compare to Revealed that is the Christian Religion God is called Light 1 John 1.5 and Christ Mat. 4.2 is called the Sun of Righteousness and tho' there is a Precedent Natural Knowledge of God like the Light of the First Day yet now that Christ is Revealed the true Knowledge of God is to be had as the Scripture speaks only in the Face of Jesus Christ For none know God truly but the Son and he to whom soever the Son will Reveal him Mat. 11.27 And to go back now from the Revealed to Natural Religion is as if we should forsake the Light of the Sun to grope after the Light of the First Day And as Christ is Superiour to our Natural Light or Reason so the Institutions of his Revealed Religion do take place of our Natural Instincts Thus shall a Man leave his Father and Mother which are Natural Relations and shall cleave to his Wife which is a Positive Institution Kings and Bishops our Governors both in Church and State our Spiritual and Political Fathers have greater Authority over us than our Natural Parents So far is it from being true which Dr. T. has set up as a Maxim that what he calls Natural Duties are of more necessary and Indispensible Obligation than any Positive Precepts of Revealed Religion On the contrary the Precepts of Revealed Religion as they are of far Greater and Higher Authority than our own meer Natural Notions So are they the surest Indication of what was the First and Original Pure and Vncorrurted Dictates of our Nature I have here only mentioned these short passages out of some of Dr. T 's Sermons to shew his plain and down-right Hâ—bbism upon which I could enlarge and shew you the same Thread to run through all his Works But this I intend for a Task by it self my present Work being his Socinianism And I think it an Indispensible Duty to warn the World especially this poor Kingdom of this Man 's Diabolical Principles because he is got now into so high a Sphere as to be able to do much mischief among the Clergy by preferring those of his own Principles the Latitudinarians and by this means
corrupt them to Idelatry Deut. 4.15 c. As before observed the Degrees of Inhabitation say nothing to the making the thing inhabited to be God No less Inhabitation than an Impersonation can do that because no lesser or other sort of Inhabitation does carry with it the Communicatio Inliâ—matum so as to make God be called that thing or that thing be called God And therefore it is a gross Error which the Dr. asserts p. 113. That the Indwelling of the Jehovah was according to the Scripture Phrase said to be Jehovah It is so far from Scripture Phrase that all the Holy Scriptures do detest it as Idolatry This distinction would justifie the worship of the Sun as being a Glorious Tent or Tabernacle of God And no doubt God does Inhabit it as he does every Creature in their several Degrees and this will justifie all the wild Heathen Idolatry For Higher or Lower in Creatures that is different degrees of God's Inhabition make no difference as to the worship of them It is as much Idolatry to worship the highest Angel as the meanest Worm Therefore the Dr's Argument is most Heterodox that the Inhabitation of God in Christ makes Christ to be God If by Inhabitation he means any thing short of Impersonation Which if he had meant he had never thought of explaining it by the Inhabitation of God in the Cloud Or thrust himself upon such a Precipice of Idolatry as to aver that the Cloud was Jehovah and that they worshipped the Cloud because of God's dwâ—lling in it Yet as the former Dr. who Licenses what this his Second has wrote will not as before told stand out or loose any thing for the word Person But then you must take what he means by it So this Stickler does now and then slip it in that he may have it to say but will not let himself be mistaken in explaining it as above The design is to wear Men off from this Personality by degrees never making use of the word but some way or other to expose it and to lead Men from the true and full meaning of it as it was necessarily used on purpose to distinguish such direful and wasting Heresies as now infest the Church under much Sheeps Cloathing For if God has not assum'd our Nature into his own Person only dwelt in Christ as in the Temple as in the Cloud tho' in an higher degree Christ cannot be our God and we are Idolaters in worshipping Him as much as the Heathen in worshipping their Idols from the supposed Inhabitation of God in them And God has not taken upon him our Nature more than the Nature of Angels as the Apostle argues Heb. 2.16 Nay God dwells more visibly with his Angels or Inhabits them more sully and intimately than Mankind Therefore God's dwelling in a Man does no more make him God than God's dwelling in the Angels of his Presence makes all them to be God If this Argument hold Lucifer was in the right when he pretended to be God for he was the most Glorious Angel and consequently God did dwell in him in an Higher Degree than in other Angels This Example shews that no degrees of Inhabitation gives any Title to Divine Nature What then has Mankind gain'd by God's Inhabitation in the Human Nature of Jesus Christ if that be all What is that to other Men What better am I for that than for his Inhabitation in the Human Nature of Moses or even in the dead Walls of the Temple O yes says the Dr. p. 120. The Great God is also our Faderal God or Jehovah by his dwelling in the Human Nature of Jesus Christ Was He not Jehovah likewise or a Faderal God to the Jews And that by his Dwelling in the Temple and affording his Presence there Does he not call them his Faderal People Gather my Saints together unto me those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice Psal 50.5 How is the Human Nature advanced beyond that of Angels Or as it is express'd in St. Athanasius's Creed how is the Manhood taken into God if there be no more than a bare Inhabitation of God in the Flesh Christ is our Lord says the Dr. ibid. p. 120. nos by an Assumption into an High Dignity or the Communicating Divine Honour to him but as the Eternal Word dwelt Bodily in him Well then Dr. You say that the In-dwelling of the Eternal word did not Communicate Divine Honour to Christ How then I pray you is he Adorable How is he God by Nature Since as you quote it in the next page 121. it is the Definition which St. Paul gives of Heathenish Idolatry 4 Gal. 8. to worship those who by Nature are not Gods And you your self p. 110. Give this Description of Idolatry that is Either the worshipping of other Gods besides the true or the worshipping the true God under a Bodily Representation Now you confess that the Eternal word dwelt Bodily in Christ Jesus which I suppose you will not say of his dwelling in the Temple or in any other Holy Man and therefore to worship God only in Christ which you would be at is the worshipping of God under a Bodily Representation more than worshipping him in the Sun or in any Image because he is not so Bodily Represented in them or in any thing else as in the Human Nature of Jesus Christ. I say the worshipping of Christ must by this Rule be the most direct Idolatry if we suppose no more than an Indwelling of the Divinity in him and not that his Human Nature was Exalted and even Impersonated with the Divine Nature whereby he was as truly and really that is Naturally God as he was Man But rather then let Christ be a Divine Person the Dr. Would be content to loose his own Personality and Confound the very Notion of Subsistence or Personallity at least 'twixt Flesh and Spirit which he takes upon him to Explain in a New and Extraordinary Manner for several Pages to gether At last he comes to this p. 106. These are all the ways says he That we can apprehend of a Minds assuming matter and being united to it which is the having it under i'ts actuation or authority So that the Acts of the mind give such Impressions to the Body as Govern and Command it This Description wou'd Impersenat all the Angels which have appeared in Bodyes with that matter which they assum'd for there is no doubt but they did perfectly well Command and Govern those Bodyes better much than we can do ours Made 'em Fly and Mount as they pleased And upon this account the Eternal word was often Impersonated with Matter before his being made Flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin if we believe as it is Generally believed That it was He who appear'd to Moses in the Bush to Joshua as the Captain of the Lord's Hist to Abraham in the form of an Angel c. But all this was not assuming any of
these Statutes which were not good and therefore he has Interpreted these to be the Law which God gave them God is said to give them these evil Statutes v. 25. no otherwise than as he is said to pollute them v. 26. that is to suffer them to be polluted and to follow Idolatry there meant by the Statutes which were not good As God has threatned Deut. 4.28 That it they would not serve him He would give them up to Idolatry to serve Gods of Wood and Stone c. But to say that the Laws which God gave were far from being the best that they were not good is such a bold stroke as stops nothing short of Blasphemy Whereas to express their exceeding Excellency and that there was no manner of defect or imperfection in them They are often compared to Gold purified 7 times in the Fire till no dross at all was left They were called (a) Prov. 30.5 Pure and Perfect and therefore we are commanded neither to add nor diminish They are called our (b) Deut. 32.47 Life (c) Rom. 7.2 Holy and Just and Good (d) Psal 119.96 far exceeding all Perfection But Dr. Til t thinks they were nothing but a Complaisance to the Folly and Wickedness of Men. O good God! Was the Glorious Gospel and Salvation by Christ not only exhited under its Types in the Lâ—r but * Tit. 1.2 promised before the World began †Eph. 3.11 Purposed from Eternity ‡ Ps 119.15 2. Founded forever was the (e) Heb. 13.20 Blood of the Everlasting Testament shed for no other Reasons but to comply with Men's foolish Expectations How unreasonable soever That such dreadful Blasphemy should ever be heard in a Christian Nation That it should pass uncensured F. The Dr. says there may be other weighty Reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom C. This is perfect shirting and putting off No doubt the Divine Wisdom his many reasons for every thing He does which we cannot Comprehend But the Dr. gives no other reason and 't is to be supposed he would have given a better if he had it Our dispute is not what God knows but what God has Revealed And how this Dr. understands those Revelations and whether according to the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church particularly as it is professed in the Church of England in that Great and Fundamental Point of the Satisfaction of Christ wherein if what is said be not sufficient I will further shew you that he is altogether a Socinian even in this Sermon which he has published to blind the Eyes of the World and free himself from that Imputation First He absolutely and avowedly cuts off the whole Doctrine of Satisfaction due to the Justice of God for our Sins or if due that it need not be paid and therefore whatever other reasons there may be That can be none oâ— the Reasons of Christ's Dying for us Not says the Dr. in this Sermon p. 11. That God could not have pardoned sin without Satisfaction made to his Justice either by the suffering of the sinner himself or if a Sacrifice in his stead p. 26. God did not want Goodness to have forgiven sin freely and without any satisfaction F. Why Will you say that God did want so much Goodness C. By Goodness here you mean Mercy and we know it is the proper effect of Mercy to forgive and God's Mercy is Infinite and so is his Justice they do not Thwart or Contradict one another but they Exalt and Magnify one another Now the Dr. would put a Sophism upon us To bid us deny that Goodness or Mercy will forgive Or to say that God is stinted in his Mercy or Goodness But we will say That Justice cannot be satisfied without full Payment made and that God is not crippled or stinted in his Justice more than in his Mercy for He is Justice it self and therefore what is necessary to the Nature of Justice must be so to His Nature for they are the same In your Sense Gods Atributes fight with one another and one must overcome the other But as we explain it They all stand Full and Infinite and no one Encroaches upon the other but they Rejoice and Exalt together and one Extols and Glorifies the other That Gods Justice is magnified in Requiring full satisfaction His Wisdom in Finding it and his Mercy or Goodness in Giving that Satisfaction for us Now I appeal to your self whether this be not more Rational than to make the End of all the Glorious Dispensation of the Gospel to be nothing else than a Compliance with a parcel of unreasonable and even wicked and Diabolical Fancies which had possess'd Men's Minds no matter how Especially considering that the Author and Preacher of this Glorious Conceit Serm. 4. p. 180. confesses That notwithstanding of all that he can say in favour of this Brat of his own Brain It may still seem strange to a Considering Man that God who without all this Circumstance and Condescension could have done the Business for which his Son came into the World should yet make choice of this way for the Redemption and Recovery of fallen Man That is to say That God should Sacrifice his own Son for nothing to no purpose in the World when all that his Son came for might have been as well done without it And this indeed must eternally seem strange to any Man of common sense F. But the Doctor defends himself in the words just following viz. I make no manner of doubt to say that it would be a great presumption and boldness in any Man to affirm that the infinite Wisdom of God could not have brought about the Salvation of Men by any other way than by this very way in which he hath done it C. This is the Doctor 's usual Topick which I observ'd to you in our last Conversation concerning his Sermon of Hell when Reason fails him to fly to God's Omnipotence and dare us to say that God cannot do this or that and therefore that what the Dr. says may be true for who dare say that God cannot make it true F. But after all will you say that God could not have sav'd Man any other way than by the Sacrifice of Christ. C. To avoid that Irreverent manner of Expression of saving God cannot I say that from the very nature of Justice which is God there was a necessity for a full and adequate Satisfaction to be made for sin Whether any other Satisfaction could have been found besides the Sacrifice of Christ is another question And not to enter into the Depths of God I will give you these Reasons why no other way was possible by any Argument or Thought imaginable to us Because the Person must be Infinite who could pay an Infinite Debt for such is Sin being an offence against Infinite Goodness and likewise must be Man that the same Nature which offended should make the Satisfaction And therefore that Christ took