viz. 1. Papists 2. False Lutherans 3. Anabaptists 4. Disciplinarians 5. Weigelians 6. Remonstrants 7. Socinians The others being either sufficiently vanquisht or removed far from us the Socinians in our time do more secretly creep in and more dangerously undermine for these are not content wholly to obliterate Original Sin and the Satisfaction of our Saviour unless withal they wholly abolish the Eternity of the Son of the Living God so that he may be no longer called God man but a Man of God and not the Eternal Son of God but the Son of the Eternal God as dying Sermatus did blaspheme It were to be wished that such Prodigies of Opinions had never toucht our Shoars and it had been better that in their passage hither they had been sunk in the bottom of the Sea with a Mill-stone about their necks But what must be done when they daily rise up to the scandal of the Weak and no small disgrace to Religion in forreign Parts their wicked Attempts have been opposed by Bellarmine Scarga Weike and Smiglicius Jesuits by Francisco Stegmannus Prolaeus Meisner Martinius Hunnius Winkelman Gawerus Gerrardus Brochmand Himelius Thralieus among the Lutherans and by Calvinists Lubertus Lucier Gasmannus Jacobus a Porta Jo. Junius Maccovius Ravenspergerus Wendeline Zarnovicius and Covet with many others Calvin against Servetus Zanchius in thirteen Books De Tribus Elohim dedicated to Archbishop Grindal and the Earl of Bedford Zach. Ursme against the Cracovian Catechism Franciscus Junius against an Anonimus Arian and others these had diligently trodden down those Tares for a time which now spring up again with pestilent increase by the sowing of the wicked Enemy Our Country-men I confess were flower in weeding out these Tares whether it was as surprized at the return of those Blasphemies from Hell or whether they thought it more adviseable to let them dye in silence than curiously to examine them to feed Curiosity But moderate Counsels cannot withstand importunate Attempts their petulancy compels me to speak as St. Hilary to undertake Difficulties and as it were to speak things that ought to be kept secret especially seeing our Adversaries triumph at our silence boasting that they have over-come where no opposition is made Now there are three things wherein we place the main hopes of our Salvation I. The Knowledge of our Misery by Original Corruption II. The Knowledge of a Saviour by his redeeming Satisfaction III. A grateful Return of faithful and due Obedience But those who deny Original Sin and the Redemption of Christ are not likely to be truly Grateful Of Original Sin and the Satisfaction of Christ I have already treated against these subtile Enemies who neither acknowledge their Misery nor grant the Necessity of any Satisfaction I now stand up by the assistance of Christ and your leave for the Defence of the Deity of Christ especially seeing not long since Jo. Crellius by the united Strength and Arts of the whole Sect hath so boldly assaulted the chief Foundation of our Salvation therefore the Question to be now discust is Whether Christ be Eternal God Co-essential with the Father and Holy Spirit 3 S. This Question that we may handle with due Reverence and saving Advantage do Thou O Son of the Living God Illuminate me with the Rays of thy Eternal Deity and grant me a Mouth and Wisdom which they that Gainsay may not be able to resist Being thus prepared that I may not stop at the Threshold it must be observed That the Adversaries grant to the Father both Eternity and Personality to the Son a Personality but not Eternity but to the Holy Ghost an Eternity but not Personality And in this they differ from the ancient Arians that these acknowledge the Son of the Living God to be the first Born of the Creatures but the Socinians that he was born after his Mother For which reason Smiglerius doth not well imputing Arianism to them while with more labour than success he disputes against those New Monsters as he calls them for the Socinians attribute less to our Saviour than the Arians both affirm him to be a Creature but the Arians a more noble Creature as is manifest by the Disputation held at Cracow between Faustus Socinus and Erasmus a Minister of Transilvania and therefore they affect to be called the Reformers of Arius rather than his Disciples as it is in the Answers of Moscorovius and Smalsius against Smiglesius 2. It is to be observed That the Papists give no small advantage to the Cause which they oppose while they tenaciously hold in their School-Divinity that Christ merited for himself and that he was our Mediator according to his Humane Nature only for hence the Adversaries infer that that which he performed was but due and therefore it was to be to his own advantage only Whence therefore is that superabundant Merit by which he satisfied the Father for us And if his Humane Nature only were sufficient for the Work of our Redemption what need was there of his being God and Man I know what the Jesuits are wont to answer here but in my opinion we ought not rashly to grant any thing to such Sophisters as wrest all things to their own ends with great Art 3. This must not be omitted that in Scripture he is called God that is so by Nature or Donation and by gift either in regard of Sanctification or Mission or Commission or all these joyntly 4. Observe that a thing is counted Eternal as to Duration Indetermination Continuation and Signification to Duration because it wants beginning or end and so God alone is Eternal or because it wants an end only so Angels and Humane Souls which are called for distinction sake Eviternal as to Indetermination Aaron's Priesthood was called Eternal because no determinate end was appointed to it as to Continuation that is called Eternal that flows on without interruption as to Signification Circumcision is called Eternal not as to itself but its Anti-type 5. These words Essence Existence Subsistence ought acurately to be distinguished one from the other so that Essence may be fitly applied to the Nature Subsistence to Persons Existence to Notions and for clearer distinction Nature answers to the question what Person to the question who and Notion to the manner how But we have no dependance on these Terms of the Fathers and Schools but use them not as if our Faith needed them but because the Perversness of our Adversaries hath forced the Orthodox to express themselves after this manner to defeat the Devices of those Men who seek to hide themselves in the dark Labyrinths of Humane Reason whence we affirm that these ten words Essence Coessential Subsistence Substance Person Propriety Relation Notion Circumcission Trinity have been rightly though unwillingly devised by the Fathers retained by the School-men explicated by Bellarmine Zanchy c. to serve in this business as Prospective to discover the Subtilties of the Adversaries which otherwise might escape their sight not
one like the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days and received from him Glory and Power and a Kingdom The second from Rev. 5.7 Where the Lamb whom all confess to be Christ received a Book from him that sate on the Throne Where the Giver and the Receiver are really distinguished Ans If the Son of Man in the first Vision doth denote Christ as we acknowledge then he did exist before he was born of the Virgin which confutes the Adversaries In the second the Lamb had the same Honour given him from the twenty four Elders and from all the Creatures as he that sate on the Throne which argueth an Equality of Excellency so that all these imply a distinction of Persons not a diversity of Nature 4ly They urge those places wherein Christ is said to receive all things from the Father as Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Joh. 5.26 The Father hath given to the Son to have Life in himself whence he is said to be the Image Brightness and Character only of his Father's Person Heb. 1.3 Now it is say they necessary that he who receiveth be inferior to him that giveth and the Image or Character to its Proto-type Ans John 5.2 resolves all these Objections That God gave him authority of exercising Judgment as he is the Son of Man not of God for so he is God of God Light of Light the essential Image and Character of the Person of his Father and inferior only in Order not in Nature or Time But these Men will not distinguish with St. John between Christ's Humane and his Divine Nature nor with St. Paul between the Form of God and the Form of a Servant but this is their constant practice to confound the Essence and the Person 5ly They object that Christ is numbred among the Creatures being called the first born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and the beginning of the Creation Revel 3.14 He that shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and be subject to him therefore he cannot be of the same Nature and Excellency To this it is answered before That he is called the first begotten not the first created for he was begotten from Eternity before all Creatures which were made by him as it there followeth he was not created in Time as the Creatures were And if he had been so the first born he had been before the Angels and the Virgin Mary which the Socinians do deny against the Arians 2. The Apocalipt calls him the beginning of the Creatures of God as the Active Principle from whom all the Creatures had their beginning not the Passive as if he were the first of those things that were created 3. The delivering of the Kingdom into the hands of the Father and his subjection thereupon is not the subjection of the Nature but of the Economy after the finishing of the Mediatorial Office or if I may so speak the resignation or laying down of that Office that he might resume that Glory forever which he affirms he had with his Father before the World was John 17.5 6ly They oppose this External Generation and Glory of the Son by reasons for upon supposition of such Generation Crellius saith it would follow 1. That the Son would be the Son of himself 2. There would be infinite Sons 3. That the Son would be from Eternity and not from Eternity 4. That the Son was yet to be generated and to be generated to Eternity which are things irrational and not to be admitted Ans Reason doth not comprehend things Infinite though Faith may apprehend them therefore it is unreasonable to measure by the Rule of Reason those things which are peculiar to Faith only and depend on Revelation only and it is sufficiently revealed to us in the Scripture that there is One God and that in this Unity there are three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost This we believe because it is written and do not doubt though it appear not by Humane reasoning how this can be however we deny that from the Arguings of the Adversaries or from Reason rightly informed it would follow First That according to our Opinion the Son should be the Son of himself because one Essence doth not beget another but one Person begets another as the Father the Son who of him becomes another Person not another thing 2. It is but his Dream of infinite Sons seeing that the only begotten is of infinite Perfection which is not divisible or multiplicable 3. Nor is Eternity repugnant to Generation for Moscorovius against Smigletius defends the probability of it the Materia Prima to be eternal and uncreate and so still to remain which yet the Leaders of this Opinion will not grant to be and not to be from Eternity thus supposing the Sun to be eternal its splendor which all would grant to have been to be and to endure with it must be eternal 4. Therefore when the Nicene Fathers do express this eternal Generation of the Son by the Emanation of Light from Light they do not mean that which is fleeting from that which is fixed but do manifest as much as they could the Equality and Co-eternity of Persons in their Order affirming the Son to be begotten Genitum non generandum 7. Lastly They load the Incarnation with so many Absurdities as if from thence it would follow 1. That the Father and Holy Spirit were as much incarnate as the Son 2. That the Person of the Son did wholly cease 3. That things in themselves different did unite Or 4. or at least that as Nestorius says two Persons did yet subsist in the Son But this Heap of Trifles hath been long since confuted by those of our Party Hierome Zanchy whose words are worthy to be repeated treating of this Controversy saith I affirm that I never read any thing in the Writings of Lelius Socinus Ochinus Servetus and the rest of that Bran whose Dirt is flung about by the Modern Socinians that hath any thing of that Accuracy which many Books of the Ancient Hereticks had for they are all either the old Song repeated an hundred times or new Impertinencies condemned before they were conceived Thus that Strenuous Doctor a Person of Primitive Discipline and of great Learning and Experience in these Controversies To whom we may add the Acurate Bisterfield The Sum of all is this We do not say that the Essence was Incarnate but the second Person in the Trinity 2ly That he did not by this cease to be a Person because he assumed the Humane Nature not a Person 3ly Not that by this Assumption the Divine Nature were any way perfected but that he thereby perfected the Humane Whence 4ly different Natures as the Soul and Body in Man did unite in one Person by an ineffable but possible Union not making two Persons as Nestorius dreamed because they have but one Subsistence which the Humane Nature that was assumed brought not with
Father can produce another to live after him and continue the existence of his Nature when his Person is dissolved but this supposeth the imperfection of Mortality wholly to be removed when we speak of Him who inhabiteth Eternity the Essence which God alway had without beginning without beginning he did communicate being alway Father as alway God Animals when they come to perfection of Nature then become prolifical in God eternal Perfection shews his eternal Fecundity And that which is most remarkable in Humane Generations the Son is of the same nature with the Father and yet is not the same Man because though he have an Essence of the same kind yet he hath not the same Essence the power of Generation depending on the first prolifical benediction increase and multiply it must be made by way of Multiplication and thus every Son becomes another Man but the Divine Essence being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division and in respect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication is so communicated as not to be multiplied insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same Nature but is the same God the Father God and the Word God Abraham Man and Isaac Man but Abraham one Man Isaac another Man not so the Father one God and the Son another God but the Father and the Word both the same God Being then the propriety of Generation is founded in the essential Similitude of the Son to the Father by reason of the same Nature which he receiveth from him being the full perfect Nature of God is communicated to the Word and that more intimately and with a greater Unity and Identity than can be found in Humane Generations it follows that this communication of the Divine Nature is the proper Generation by which Christ is and is called the true and proper Son of God this was the foundation of St. Peter's Confession Thou art Christ the Son of the living God This the ground of our Saviour's distinction I go to my Father and to your Father Hence did St. John raise a Verity more than only a Negation of Falsity when he said We are in the true Son for we which are in him are true not false sons but such sons we are not as the true Son Hence did St. Paul draw an Argument of the infinite Love of God towards Man in that he spared not his own proper Son Multum distat inter dominationem conditionem inter generationem adoptionem inter substantiam gratiam ideoque non hic permixte nec passim dicitur ascendo ad patrem nostrum aut deum nostrum sed ad patrem meum patrem vestrum ad deum meum ad deum vestrum Aliter enim deus illi pater est aliter nobis illum siquidem natura coaequat misericordia humiliat nos vero natura prosternat misericordia erigit Capreolus Carthag Epist Thus saith this Incomparable Author we have sufficiently shewed that the eternal Communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word was the proper Generation by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God which was our fourth Assertion And now I may hope that the Doctor will be as big as his word not to rise up any more against the Doctrine and Authority of the Church whereof he stiles himself a true Son and in which he acknowledgeth a Power to impose Silence though not Faith To the Readers p. 7. FINIS ERRATA PAge 20. l. ult read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. after ground of add denying p. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 16. for contra r. colta and l. 21. for nosce nosse p. 38. l. 15. for left r. best known p. 49. l. add is to the word Religion p. 56. l. 3. r. apposite and l. 20. profecit p. 57. l. 16. dele est and l. ult for which r. what p. 61. l. 16. Anomaeus i. e. p. 65. l. 11. for Eastern r. Western p. 66. l. 4. for Valence r. Valens p. 69. l. 3. r. sentiâ—e de fillo p. 70. l. 4. dele either Imperial or p. 80. l. 6. r. prosecute p. 84. l. 27. r. deterted for detected p. 87. l. 33. by commodious Interpretations p. 95. l. 13. after Doctrines add Than p. 96. l. 20. Calonius p. 106. l. penult add is before Christ. p. 119. l. 1. Prateolus p. 13â— l. 14. add by before the word Father p. 154. l. 36. r. eternal for external
to the Holy Scriptures and the Catholick Faith received and inviolably preserved by all Orthodox Christians in all the World in all Ages from the beginning of the Church to this present time and as repugnant to the Decrees of Councils especially that of Nice the most Solemn of all that are extant and most worthy of our Faith and Acceptation And lastly as contrary to the Writings of the Fathers especially of St. Athanasius whole Faith and Patience in Defence of the Cause of Christ was great beyond Example will be memorably celebrated wheresoever the Gospel shall be preached II. Moreover We injoyn under the Penalty of the Law all Students not to read the said infamous Libel or any of that kind which do re-call as from Hell those anciently condemn'd Heresies commanding and firmly enjoyning all and every the Praelectors Tutors Catechists and others to whom the Institution of Accademical Youth is intrusted that they diligently instruct and establish those that are committed to their Charge in that chief and necessary Article of our Faith upon which as on a Foundation all the rest do depend by which we are taught to believe and profess That there is One Living and True God and in the Unity of this Nature there are Three Persons of the same Essence Power and Eternity Father Son and Holy Ghost III. We Decree the above-named Infamous Libel to be Burnt by an Infamous Hand in the Area of our Schools The Propositions referr'd to in the Decree Pref. That Mahomet profest all the Articles of the Christian Faith Whether Mahomet or Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel is not so plain by the light of Scripture as it is by that of Experience that the later gave occasion encouragement and advantage to the former For when by nice and hot Disputes especially concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the minds of the whole People had been long confounded and by the then late Establishment of Image-Worship the Scandal was encreased so that to vulgar Understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism then that of Image-Worship did of Idolatry Then was there a tempting Opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a Reformer of such Corruptions as were both too gross to be justified and too visible to be denyed Cap. 7. pag. 40. The great Question concerning the Godhead of Christ is 1. Impertinent to our Lords design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplators own purpose 3. Dangerous Cap. 8. pag. 46. Two Evangelists trace our Lord's Genealogy but as they derive it not from his real but supposed Father so do they take two several ways not to satisfie but to amuse us What is this but to admonish us against Curiosity The Pedigree of his Flesh might easily have been either cleared or unmentioned Had the Evangelists been wholly silent concerning it we had less wondred but that they should profess to instruct us yet doubly disappoint us first by deriving it from a wrong Father and then by distracting us between two ways What is this but to verify the Prophets description Who shall declare his Generation And what doth this so careful Concealment of his Generation according to the Humane Nature signify more plainly than a warning against searching after his Eternal Generation of his Divinity If it were needless and therefore left impossible to prove him derived from David which was one of his most revealed Characters how can it be otherwise to understand that Generation of his which must needs be so much the more above our Understanding as the Nature of God is above our own Pag. 48. And might not a Heathen at this rate justify Polytheism provided his Gods disagreed not among themselves The Schoolmen therefore will not stand to this State of the Question but distinguish between Person and suppositum rationale which yet they cannot so do as to satisfy themselves and therefore shelter themselves in their impregnable Fort Mystery and thence thunder upon the Adversaries both of this and of another no less beloved Mystery For they make this their Cock argument for Transubstantiation That since the Scripture is no less express for the One than the Other and the Contradictions no less gross in the One than in the Other therefore we must embrace the one as well as the other To this Objection of the Romanists and to others of the Unitarians we have found an Answer That we must not infer from our Own Nature to God's for that Ours is finite and God's is infinite Three Persons among Us are Three Men because they agree in one Common Nature but the Divine Nature is not a Common One but a Singular and therefore Three Persons do not make Three Gods If you understand not this you must not wonder or at least you must not Gainsay it for it is a Mystery which Reason may not pretend to fathom Pag. 51. Thus have we pointed and only pointed at some of the many intangling Questions which puzzeled and divided the subtilest Wits of seveal Ages and were at last decided by no other Evidence but of Imperial and Papal Authority sufficient to silence Disputes but not stablish Truth And who is he that is not discouraged from giving a confident Assent to what is this way obtruded upon his Belief Cap. 9. pag. 53. I. There is danger of Blasphemy in examining the Silly Question as he calls it concerning the Eternity of the Godhead of Christ This is a second danger That we have no firm ground to go upon Pag. 54. The only advantage of the Catholicks is long Possession and that after Sentence They have indeed so handled Matters as to hide much and varnish all yet even so we may pick out enough to justify an Appeal by observing how that Possession was first obtained then continued and at last setled The Sentence which first determined the Controversy in the Council of Nice was not by the Merit of the Cause but Interest of the Parties Pag. 56. This long and mischeivous Controversy was at last setled by Theodosius who having received his Instructions and Baptism from a Consubstantialist required all his Subjects to conform to that Religion which Peter the Prince of the Apostles from the beginning had delivered to the Romans and which at that time Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria held and that Church only should be esteemed Catholick which worshipped the Divine Trinity with equal Honour and those which held the other should be called Hereticks made infamous and punished This therefore we may call setling the Controversy because thenceforth all succeeding Emperors and Bishops wrote after this Copy and both the Parties have ever worn these Titles which the Emperor by his Imperial Power as the unquestionable Fountain of Honor was pleased to bestow upon them Behold now the Ground upon which one of our Fundamental Articles of Faith is Built behold the Justice of that Plea
baptized shall be saved And this Covenant Dat quod Jubet it assists us in willing and doing what is required Heb. 8.6 'T is a better Covenant established on better Promises And Heb. 8.10 and Rom. 16. This is my Covenant I will put my Law into their hearts and write them in their minds and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People and I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more But he commends especially the Character of the Gospel as a Message and so makes our Saviour only an eminent Prophet that came to advance the Natural Religion a little higher than other Prophets had done his design being no other than to advance Natural Religion to a higher perfection by nobler Precepts and richer Promises as he says This is no more than what the Turks will grant in Honour of our Saviour But there is another Notion of the Gospel more common than the other two though purposely omitted by the Doctor which is as we render it the New Testament of our Saviour who was not only as Socinus saith a Witness of that Testament but the Testator himself that Testament whereby Christ makes us Heirs of all that he hath purchased for us that Testament which was sealed by his Blood and took effect by his Death and Resurrection for the Salvation of all that believe in him and obey his Commandments Grotius on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes it parallel with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to kill or cut down But as he observes the Gospel is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Covenant in a strict sence wherein two Parties do mutually Covenant but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Will or Testament of a Superiour who adds Rewards to the performance of his Will and it is called the New Testament being a Covenant of Grace not of Debt upon our Works but Mercy upon our Faith So that Grotius concludes the most proper Notion of the Gospel is that of a Testament by which the Heir is obliged under certain Conditions and by way of a Trust reposed in him and he defines it to be the Will of Christ confirmed to us by his Death whereby we have a Right to all his Promises on performance of his Commandments But the Doctor carefully avoids any word that might imply the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and therefore as he wholly suppresseth that of a Testament which hath its effect from the Death of the Testator as our Saviour often calls it the New Testament in his Blood Luke 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 so he slights that of a Covenant as being wont to be confirmed by the Death of the Sacrifice for in all Languages Hebrew Greek and Latin as well as in English to strike a Covenant imported the Sanction of it by shedding of Blood and prefers the Notion of a Message as if Christ had done no more for us than Moses or any of the Prophets i. e. only declared the Precepts of God which is pure Socinianism Chap. 1. p. 1. Col. 2. he says The design of the Gospel is no other than the advancement of Primitive Natural Religion to a higher perfection for which he alledgeth those words of St. John 1 Joh. 1.3 These things we write unto you that you may have fellowship with us c. The Patriarchs knew only the Father but our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son as therefore in the face of Jesus Christ we see more of the Father's goodness so are we thereby obliged to higher strains of love to him and one another which is the sum of Natural Religion And again p. 2. Col. 1. The design of the Gospel is to exalt us to the highest perfection of the Natural Law by making us perfect as our Father which is in heaven is perfect This is the Authentick General Test says he whereby every Doctrine must be tried that claimeth our entertainment as a Gospel truth And thus he equalleth Moral Vertue with Cristian Faith and teacheth Pelagianism which makes the strength of Natural Endeavours sufficient to Salvation without the special Grace of Christ as if that were not necessary to humble us in the sense of our Sins to mortifie our Lusts inlighten our Minds subdue our perverse Wills and purifie our Hearts they may be good Moral Men that conform to the Rules of Reason but no good Christians unless they are assisted by the Grace of the Holy Spirit they may have a form of Godliness but not the power thereof He greatly extols Natural Religion affirming That the Faith which the Gospel requires had its Foundation in Natural Religion Natural Faith as he says is proposed as the Mother of Evangelical p. 14. c. 2. p. 14. Col. 2. I have proved saith he that Faith in God is a Duty of Natural Religion a Moral Vertue a participation of the Divine Nature in one of God's Attributes his Justice to be valued as self-good c. P. 1. Col. 2. He makes the Law of Nature the Foundation on which the New Covenant so leaneth as to be kept firm in its place I fear that the Reason of his thus extolling Natural Religion is because that in its highest perfection it can attain only to the knowledge of the Unity of the Godhead though in the depraved State of Nature Men generally worshipped many False instead of the One true God but this Natural Religion suits better with the design of Arius than of the Gospel and therefore the Author espouseth and magnifies it He adds That as Abraham is proposed as the Father of the faithful Natural Faith is also proposed as the Mother of Evangelical Here therefore we must enquire whether the Faith of Abraham were meerly a Natural Faith and he had no Revelations that begat and strengthened his Faith The Arians grant that as our Saviour says Before Abraham was I am that Christ was before the Creation of the World the Lamb slain from the beginning that by him the World was made yet the Doctor declareth his opinion that the Patriarchs had the knowledge of God the Father only but it is like that of Abailardus contrary to the opinion of all other Doctors of the Church and the tenor of the Scriptures for how then is it said that Abraham rejoyced to see my day and saw it the day of his Incarnation in Isaac's wonderful Conception his Death and Resurrection in Abraham's readiness to sacrifice him and God's delivering him from death from whence Abraham received him in a Figure or Type of Christ Hebr. 11.19 Tertullian thus expounds that place That as Christ being a man was after Abraham so as God he was before Abraham and as being a man he was the son of David but as God he was David 's Lord as man he was born into the world as God he made the world Tertul. de
to the interpretation of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kiss the Son least he be angry and our Saviour applying this expression to himself makes it beyond doubt So they apply Psal 89.26 He shall call me thou art my Father c. which also is applied to the Messias and that God was his Father and that the Psalmist speaks of Christ St. Peter Acts 4.27 puts beyond doubt and that he was that Corner-stone which these Builders refused though there is not Salvation in any other verses 11 12 So that in the sense of the Jews our Saviour making himself the Messias and the Son of God he made himself God and did blaspheme And now having proved that this Author cannot by all his Art wrest this Scripture to his Socinian sence I hope he will be so civil as to grant us the same advantage as he challenged for himself if Christ being the Son of God only by Mission had been the genuine sence of St. John in this Chapter namely that as he would have all other Scriptures that speak of Christ as of God and the Son of God ought to be accommodated and understood in his Socinian sence of being so only by Mission so it being clear that our Saviour calling himself the Son of God made himself the Natural and Eternal Son of God as the Jews understand and counted him a Blasphemer for it he ought to grant that those other places which speak of our Saviour as God and the Son of God ought to be understood of his Eternal and Natural Generation And thus it is evident that there are some Men who can swallow Contradictions and Absurdities more gross than this Gentleman imputes to the Orthodox for to give Divine Worship to one whom we acknowledge to be a meer Man is a boldfac'd contradiction to the First Commandment and to our Saviour's Command of worshipping the Lord God and serving him only whereas if we acknowledge One God only and believe that this Supreme God subsists in Three Persons this cannot be accounted a Contradiction it is something above our apprehensions through our ignorance of the Nature and Operations of the Supreme Deity which cannot be fully known unto us it is above our Reason but not contrary to it because it is agreeable to Divine Revelation as the Harmony of the Old and New Testament and the Reason and Judgment of the most and best Divines in all Ages have asserted If a sober and learned Heathen should diligently read the Gospel of St. John and find the words God and Son of God so often ascribed to him and such Divine Works done by him and consider that St. John assisted by the Spirit of God did write his Gospel on purpose to vindicate the Deity of our Saviour which was denied by many Hereticks he could not rationally conclude otherwise than that he was the Natural and Essential Son of God Bisterfield against Crellius gives this sence of the controverted place Do ye not read that I the Messias said ye are Gods c. If they that were such as they are described Psalm 82. ignorant v. 2 c. Unjust Oppressors and ignorant Judges were honoured with the Title of Gods who yet must die like other Men and the Scripture which cannot lye owns them for such how can ye say that I who am ordained to be the Judge of the whole Earth and stand in the midst of the Congregations of such Gods as an Almighty and Omniscient Judge to break in pieces as with a Rod of Iron all such unrighteous Magistrates as oppose themselves against me who am sanctified and appointed to be the Redeemer and Saviour of the World that I blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God But I insist not on this though it may have more of Argument in it than the Socinians can confute it being said in the close of that Psalm 82.8 Arise O God judge thou the earth for thou shalt take all the heathen for thy inheritance which is very applicable to our Saviour The Doctor seems to grant That Christ was before he was sanctified and sent into the World Crellius grants That to sanctifie in Scripture signifies to separate one and choose him for some singular Office and to qualifie him by special Gifts for the discharge of that Office but this cannot be affirmed says he of him that is the most high God such Sanctification and Mission belongs to Christ only in respect of his humane Nature To this Bisterfield answers That he must be a Stranger to the Scripture that is ignorant who it was and to what end Christ was sent into the World both which will prove his Godhead not barely from his Mission but his Mission to that end for which he was pre-ordained which none could effect but he that was God the Work was too great for any or all the Angels of God much more for any one Man he therefore that was sent to such an end viz. the Redemption of the World and Satisfaction to the Divine Justice must be more excellent than Men or Angels or the Mission had been in vain therefore as St. Peter says We were redeemed by the precious blood of the Son of God and by nothing else as a meritorious cause Against this Crellius objects from John 17.18 As thou O Father hast sent me into the World even so I have sent them my Disciples into the World And 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World but neither of these were in Heaven before they were sent into the World therefore neither was Christ Answ The word As doth not signifie a likeness in all respects for then false Prophets as he supposeth or else he urgeth the place to no purpose were sent to the same end as Christ and his Apostles it signifies only some particular likeness in the Mission for Christ was sent by another and for another end than the Apostles were they were not sent to redeem the World by suffering in the stead and for the sins of Men but as Christ was sent into the World to perform this singular Office so were the Apostles sent and qualified to do their Office i. e. to publish those glad Tydings Lastly Whereas Crellius says That this Sanctification cannot pertain to the Divine but Humane Nature of Christ only The Answer is That this Sanctification being the Pre-ordination of Christ to that great Office of a Mediator between God and Man for the Sanctification and Salvation of his People he is said to be sanctified i. e. as Crellius says to be set apart and ordained by his Father for that Office or to sanctify himself by undertaking to accomplish it and to that end by his Divine he sanctified his Humane Nature the Sanctification of the Divine Nature was relative not absolute or internal as if any new Vertue or Divinity were added to it but the Sanctification of the Humane Nature was the Union of it to the Divine Nature in respect
of both which Nature 〈…〉 t was qualified for that Great End and Office of a Mediator and â—oth the Sanctification and Mission of our Saviour were but a Manifestation of his being qualified both as God and Man for that great End of our Redemption If our Saviour's Sanctification and Mission into the World were a sufficient reason to convince the Jews that he was not a Blasphemer in saying that he was the Son of God why may it not be a sufficient Argument to prove that the Socinians blaspheme Christ who say he was not the Son of God until his Conception and Ascention into Heaven Might not the Jews argue then as the Socinians now do Why tell you us of your Sanctification and Mission as if that made you the Son of God if we could see you ascend into the Heavens we might believe that you came down from Heaven but till then we must believe our eyes rather than your words we see you are a Man and know your Mother and Brethren and therefore you blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God The truth is that Christ's Sanctification or Unction his Mission c. were but as St. Paul speaks of his Resurrection a Declaration only of what he was before Again the Question was not in what respect he was the Son of God but whether he was the Son of God in any such manner as might excuse him by their Law from being a Blasphemer and herein also he shews his Divine Wisdom he argues from his Works and from their Law which they knew to convince them of what they were ignorant of if he should have proved that he was the Son of God because God was his Father by eternal Generation that had been to prove ignotum per ignotius and the Jews would have equally rejected both and adjudged him guilty of Blasphemy in the highest degree as not believing that God had a Son begotten of him from Eternity or that Christ was this Son but they having heard of a Messias whom they expected about that time to come into the World the best means to convince them that he who did the Works of God which no Man could do except God were with him was that Messias and if that he was first sanctified and then sent into the World in a more eminent manner and for higher End than any of those to whom the Word of God came in former times to commissionate them as Magistrates for the Government of Mankind then he did not blaspheme in saying I am the Christ or I am the Son of God So that if our Saviour's Argument were more opposite and convincing than those of the Socinians we have gained this Fortress from them and on their surrender of this their other little Sconces will fall into our hands for whatever is spoken of our Saviour as God or the Son of God they refer to his Designation and Mission into the World i. e. to his Humane Nature as where it is said He received power from the Father that he did the works of his Father that he was one with the Father by consent of his will And they will allow no such Phrases any way to imply his Deity because those expressions of Gods giving and Christ's receiving God's sending and his being sent imply a Superiority and Inferiority in the Persons and that the one received somewhat which he had not before But the Fathers and late Divines do easily answer all these thus To the Objection of Receiving 't is said what Christ received of his Father was not given as he was God but Man St. Ambrose de Fide l. 3. n. 22. Christ prayeth as the Son of Man and obtains as the Son of God he possesseth as the Son of God what he prays for as the Son of Man so he was anointed and grew in Grace c. not as God but Man Perfecit non Deus sed caro So the Father is greater than I and the Father giveth life to the Son and he received the Spirit without measure All such Phrases belonging to Christ as Man as Christ says of himself All things are delivered to me of the Father as he was then incarnate The next most considerable Objection is from 1 Cor. 15.24 c. How Christ can be said to be that true God it being there said he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father and then the Son himself shall be subject to him Answ This doth not imply an Annulling or Abdication of his own Dominion as God no more than when God the Father is said to deliver all things to the Son and Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth the Father did exclude himself by that Gift 2ly This Kingdom is peculiarly his Church and St. Aug. de Trinitate l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. thus explains that place Tradere regnum est credentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei To present his Church pure and without spot free from all impurity of Flesh and Spirit from all Sins and all Enemies which shall be trodden under their feet as Seneca's Phrase is Reddam te tibi meliorem that whereas God was obeyed by them formerly but in part now God shall be all in all And when it is said Christ shall reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet it doth not imply that he shall reign no longer but that he shall reign so long maugre all the Powers and Polity of the Gates of Hell which shall not prevail against him for the word until doth not exclude the future time as Matth. 28.28 But how shall the Son himself then be subject shall he become a subject of whose kingdom it was promised there should be no end and that he should reign forever Luke 1.33 Object Christ while on Earth and now in Heaven is subject to his Father What other Subjection can be conceived Then when he shall deliver up the Kingdom Answ This by the Ancients was understood of the mystical Body of Christ over which he is Head and King and when the whole Church is subject then Christ as the Head may be said to be subject so Athan. Contr. Apolon n. 22. and St. Ambrose de Fide l. 5. c. 6. n. 24. Christ shall be subject in us who are not yet fully made subject And St. Aug. Q. 93. 69. n. 87. it is spoken of Christ and his Members Christus universus est caput cum Membris This Subjection is spoken in the future Tense Then shall the Son be subject Now Gregory Nazian asks the question Annon nunc est subjectus est Orat. 36. Christ as Man never disobeyed or rebelled but we that are Members of his Mistical Body do sin and disobey God and Christ and till our mortal Body shall put on Immortality we shall not be wholly brought into subjection but when Christ shall have brought down all Authority and Power subdued all his Enemies purified all his Members and presents them to his Father
and what other or better sence can we find than what the Catholick Church alway affirmed viz. That Christ with his Father and the Holy Ghost is the only true God And thus St. Augustine as hath been said renders it This is Life eternal to know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God Cont. Arium Tom. 6. n. 17. P. 54. Against Christ's Righteousness imputed to us he tells a Story of a Land that was wasted with a raging Plague to whom came a great Physitian declaring he had a Nostrum which never failed to cure those that trusted it that it cost him dear but he would freely communicate it to all that needed and desir'd it and exhorted all to come to him which many did and were cured but some said there needed no more but to trust to the Medicine The Physitian was infinitely skilful in his Art and faithful in his Promises wherefore by confidence in him they should have all his health imputed to them and that should cure them as perfectly as if they received real health by the use of his Prescriptions This is a Fiction of his own to serve his Hypothesis which I shall answer by a more probable Story out of the Midras Tehillim or the Exposition of the Psalms where on those words Kiss the Son we have this Parable This is as when a certain King was displeased with the Inhabitants of a great City the Citizens went and made Supplication to the King's Son to appease his Father's displeasure The Son went and effectually prevailed with his Father to forgive them and take them into his Favour which the King's Son having signified to the Citizens they addressed their Thanks to the King The King bid them go and give Thanks to his Son for had it not been for his Mediation their City had been destroyed This is that which is said Kiss the Son and it may be well for the Doctor if he would go and do likewise It is not good to make sport of holy Things and droll on the Mysteries of our Salvation comparing them to Fables and this in Scripture Phrase ridiculing the Peace of God as passing all understanding and the Meritorious Death of our Saviour to the Prescriptions or Juggles of a Quack as if Faith in the Power and Merits of our Saviour were as vain as the Opinions of the Mobile concerning an Empyrick yet we read of great Miracles wrought by Faith in the Person of Christ P. 41. Thus the Leaper by his Faith Lord if thou wilt thou canst make me clean And the Centurian's Faith prevailed for his Servant Matth. 8. And as many as touched the hem of his garment were healed by their faith in his almighty power There could not therefore be a more odious Comparison he says of the Mystery which the Apostle spake of to the Ephesians That though it were hard to be believed yet it was easie to be understood for it signified only That the Gentiles were Fellow-Heirs with the Jews But was not this a Mystery hid from that Nation until Christ and his Apostles revealed it wiser Men than the Doctor do rightly admire some Secrets in Nature which when their Causes and Natures are discovered very ignorant Men may apprehend this the Doctor says to shew That it is so far from being an honour that it is rather a defect As if there were no difficulty in Matters of Faith and the Mystery of Godliness mentioned by St. Paul in Timothy viz. God manifested in the flesh were no harder to be understood than that Mystery which had been so clearly revealed The admission of the Gentiles to a fellowship with the Jews This is to serve another Hypothesis of his That we are not bound to believe what we cannot understand by our Reason and so to invalidate our belief of the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Christ for saith the Doctor p. 32. col 1. If we will needs enquire into the Mysteries of Christ's Divinity and Incarnation we shall find our Understandings no less confounded by the brightness of the Mystery than our Eyes are by the Sun and of this the Holy Ghost warns us not only by a careful silence concerning our Lord's Genealogy but by express Types and Prophesies concerning its inscrutability So that by the Doctor 's Propositions neither our Knowledge nor our Faith have any thing to do about the Divinity he will not call it the Deity of our Saviour or his Incarnation it matters not whether we know or believe any thing concerning either I shall not charge the Dr. with any thing that he hath not expresly said and therefore do acknowledge that what he speaks of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation falls not under our debate but I know that the Socinians say that there is no firmer footing for the Doctrine of the Trinity in the holy Scripture than for Transubstantiation and the Socinians at Alba Julia in a Treatise printed 1568. say thus Whoever believes the Pope to be Antichrist doth truly believe the Popish Trinity Infant Baptism and other Popish Sacraments to be the Doctrines of Devils And when I consider that the Naked Gospel is bereaved of this Doctrine and intended not so much against the Doctrine and Sacraments retained in that Church as against what is maintained in the Church of England I submit it to the Judgment of others whether these following expressions of the Authors do not reflect on the Doctrine of our Church when he speaks of a pack of impertinent Mysteries p. 58. col 2. And that Mahomet among all his Whimsies hath nothing comparable to it p. 59. col 1. And that the Athanasian Doctrine may be numbred with the Papal and of the Contradictions which are in the one as well as in the other P. 41. c. 1. P. 21. c. 1. P. 56. c. 2. The Doctor seems much offended at the word Mystery thô he knows thereis nothing reserved from the youngest Catecheumen in the Church of England who is diligently instructed in the Principles of Religion by order of the Church yet he must grant that there were many things in the Scripture which continued to be so until they were revealed such were those Mysteries mentioned by St. Paul 1 Tim. 3.16 Without question great is the mystery of godliness God was manifest in the flesh justified in the spirit seen of angels believed on in the world received up into glory And such were those Parables which our Saviour proposed to his Disciples which exceeded their apprehensions until they were expounded to them by our Saviour And such was that Mystery which the Apostle speaks of Ephes 1.10 and Ephes 3.6 which was not made known to the Sons of Men in other Ages as it was revealed to the Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit viz. That the Gentiles should be Fellow heirs and of the same Body and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel But when the Gentiles were taken in to be
the Jews only on whom they were imposed neither were they the Worship of God but an Introduction thereunto The true Worship of God which I call my Religion is the Decalogue which is the Eternal and Immutable Will of God which I call mine because it is given me by God not by a Voice from Heaven but ingrafted in my mind from the Creation and because this Ingraven Decalogue is much obscured by the Corruption of Humane Nature and wicked Customs I add a Vocal Decalogue to illustrate it which Vocal Decalogue doth therefore belong to me and to all Men because it agrees with the Ingraven Decalogue and is the same with it This is my Opinion concerning the Messias or the King promised and this is the Religion which I ingenuously profess to you Martyne Seidelius This is another Professor of Natural Religion Servetius was a Spaniard of Tarracon where he profest Physick and joyning the Study of Divinity he fell into the Error of the Antitrinitarians his Blasphemous Writings and Discourses whereby he laboured to seduce others caused him to leave his Country from whence he after he had wandred up and down came and setled at Geneva and there published his Blasphemous Heresies Beza says That he called the Trinity the Three Headed Cerberus Epist 1. And in the seven Books which he wrote concerning the Errors of the Trinity speaking of the Eternal Generation of the Son l. 1. he says That then the Father ought to have a Spiritual Wife or was an Harmophrodite both Father and Mother for the reason of the word permits not that any should be called a Father without a Mother His other Errors were That the Substance of God was mutable and was a part of the Universe He denied the Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost he affirmed the Mortality of the Soul and that Moses was a ridiculous Impostor and the Church of Israel a Heard of Swine He mentioned saith Calvin the Trinity to be a Devilish Phantasm and Satanical Illusion above and hundred times For these reasons he was imprisoned by the Magistrates of Geneva and that they might proceed judiciavily against him they consulted with the Helvetian Churches who all approved of their intended Proceedings and sentenced him to be Burnt which Sentence was accordingly executed on him in Geneva 1553. Bulling Melach and other great Divines approving of it while he was in Prison many Divines besides Calvin Farel perswaded him to Recant his Errors which he obstinately refused and after Sentence was past he grew more sullen refusing Converse and to joyn in Prayers with others And when he was to be executed called on the People in the Spanish mode Miserere but not at all on God or our Saviour Christ yet this Man as wicked as he was is accounted a Martyr Both living and dead was in great repute and esteem among the Socinians Theophilus Nicolai calls him his Brother and Servant of the Messiah What did not Michael Servetus that learned Man and stout Defender of the Faith suffer unjustly Ostorodus made an Apology for him so did Voidovius And Socinus himself says That he thought much more highly of Christ than the Mahometans did and in some things wrote against them And when he was brought to the Fire he would not acknowledge the Eternal Son of God but the Son of the Eternal God for which they esteemed him a Martyr This sort of Serpents have had their lurking Holes in this Nation and have attempted to poyson the People but hitherto have been prevented as soon as they began to peep abroad I know not what they might have done had they found a Man of such Learning and Confidence as our Author In the Reign of Queen Mary to the great Grief and Scandal of the Protestant Martyrs there were some that suffered for denying the Godhead of Christ in the Year 1579 one Hamant was burnt in Norwich for denying the Deity of Christ and in the Year 1588 one Kett suffered for the same Blasphemy In King James the First his Reign one Legate suffered for the same Heresie Sandius observes p. 430. that Queen Elizabeth complained with grief That such Monsters as the Arians were found in her Kingdom whereof he gives an account that some were executed in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James the First In the Year 1579 there was printed at London an Arian Book as Sandius p. 430. called The Articles of the Family of Love and how deservedly that Family was subverted for their debauched and extravagant Practices is sufficiently known In the late Troubles when all Sects and Heresies were permitted this Gangreen began to spread their attempts were on the weaker sort of People Anabaptists and Quakers many of whom were seduced by some such Leaders as Mr. Beedle and Pen And how far the Infection spread the Reader may see in Pagit's Hiresiology and in Edwards Gangrena where there is so much Filth as makes me forbear to rake it up The Socinians have often boasted that they could vie Authorities from the Fathers of the First three hundred Years who have said more as they falsly boast against the Trinity and the Eternal Essence and Consubstantiality of the Son then those which have asserted it but as yet they have not attempted it and Mr. Bull 's Collection hath wholly discouraged that Attempt it is true that some of those Ancients spake warily of those and other Mysteries and forbore to speak their own sence or discover the nature of them as it is evident they did industriously conceal the manner of administring the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper from not only the Jews and Heathens but the Catechumens also when therefore the publick Prayers were ended 〈◊〉 M 〈…〉 a est the Deacon pronounced a Departure to such as were not the Fideles who were not admitted to the Participation of the Eucharist which practice is generally observed in the Churches of Christ to this day This was called Disciplina Arcani and it was exercised in restraining all but the Fideles from Participation of the Eucharist and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity also as some suppose This Practice was grounded on the Words of our Saviour who also would not reveal his Deity to all sorts of Persons nor some of the Mysteries of the Gospel which he proposed in dark Parables only for a certain time the People being not able to bear them the words are Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs and cast not your pearls before swine which many of the Ancients understood of not exposing the more sacred Mysteries of the Gospel to such as had not received the more common Doctrines and were not admitted to the number of the Faithful to this purpose are quoted Tertullian Origine Cyprian Athanasius Gregory Nyssene and Nazianzen Basil Heirom Epiphanius both the Cirils Chrysostome Ambrose and Augustine I confess the Church of Rome would make advantage of this Discipline but learned Men have bard them I only
that place of this Author in his second Apology where he says The Christians are not Worshippers of many impure Gods but they worship the Father Son and Holy Ghost in reason and in truth Athenagoras a Philosopher and Christian in his Apology for the Christians to Antoninus saith Least any should think me ridiculous in saying that God hath a Son as the Poets who speak of Gods which were 〈◊〉 other than Men the Word or Reason of God is of the same Form and Efficacie with the Father for of him and by him all things were made and the Father and the Son are one the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father for the Word of the Father is the Son of God united together in Power Vertue and Substance but distinguished in Subsistence and Personality Tatianus a Disciple of Justin Martyr in his Oration against the Greeks says That Christ was begotten not by any abscission but by participation or communication because that which is cut off is separated from the Original but that which is communicated doth not diminish that which doth communicate as the light of one Torch is not diminished by communicating light to another so the Word going forth from the Power of the Father did not leave the Father destitute of the Word Clement Bishop of Alexandria the Disciple of Pantenus a Martyr and Master of Origen saith That the Word was and is the Divine Principle of all things which Word hath now appeared unto Men who alone is both God and Man In his Admonition to the Gentiles speaking on Titus 2.13 of the Great God he applies it to Christ who saith He teacheth us to live well that he may as God bestow eternal Life on us hereafter And then he perswades the Gentiles Believe O Man in him that was God and Man believe him that suffered and is worshipped the living God believe in him all ye Men who alone is the God of all Men. And there he tells them That he is most manifestly the true God equal with the God of the Universe the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son And in his Pedoag l. 1. calls him The Holy God Jesus Tertullian in his Apology against the Gentiles c. 21. speaking of Christ saith We affirm'd him to be begotten of God and therefore to be the Son of God by unity of substance for both are one Spirit as when a Beam is extended from the Sun the Sun is in the Beam because it is a Beam of the Sun the substance being not seperated but extended thus he is God of God as is Light of Light for whatsoever thus proceeds from God is God Prolatum a patre non separatum dispositione alium non divisione as Grotius on John 1. quotes him In his Book against Praxeas he saith That God alone was before all things but he was alone because there was nothing without him yet was he not alone because he had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason with him And Grotius on John 1. quotes Tatianus speaking to the same sence That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Tertullian calls him God of God and Light of Light the Son not separate from the Father of one undivided Substance le cont a Proxeam c. 4. teneo unam substantium in tribus coherentibus That the whole Trinity is of one Dignity and Power In c. 17. he ascribes all the Attributes of God the Father to the Son and chap 2. against Praxeas he says The name of the Father is the Almighty God the most High the God of Israel all these agree to the Son and on Christ's words I and my Father are one he shews that they are two whom he makes equal and joyns in one Theophilus Antiochenus writing to Autolocus l. 2. says That which is begotten of God is God Which he speaks of the Word alway existing in the heart of God Ireneus l. 3. c. 6. says That neither our Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would so distinctly and absolutely have called Christ God unless he had been the true God and if at any time it gives the name to them that are not Gods it is with some addition and signification to manifest that they are not true Gods And from Christ's words to the Pharisees concerning the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham c. he concludes That Christ with his Father is the God of the Living who spake to Moses and was manifested to the Father And he applies that of the Apostle to the Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose were the Father's and of whom was Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed for ever which Scripture is so expounded by most of the Fathers He proves also the Deity of Christ he says That Christ is the measure of the Father because he comprehends him And this he appropriates to our Saviour who only comprehends the Father and he excludes the whole Creation from knowing or apprehending the Father according to his Greatness L. 2. c. 43. he says Thou O Man were created and didst not alway exist with God as doth his own Word And l. 3. c. 8. he says Nothing can be compared with the Word of God by whom all things were made Caius an ancient Presbyter of whom Photius makes mention in these words That he taught expresly of the Deity of Christ our God and of his Ineffable Generation by the Father Hyppolitus a Martyr about the Year 220 speaking of Christ says He was the infinite God and also a Man that had perfectly the perfect substance of both and that his Divinity was the same after his Incarnation as before infinite incomprehensible impassible unalterable and in brief a substantial subsistence Origen whose most mature and perfect Work being that of his Dispute with Celsus written when he was about sixty Years old confirms the same Doctrine speaking of the wise Men that presented their Gifts to our Saviour says That they offered them to him that was God and Man Gold as to a King Mirrh as to a Mortal Man and Frankinsence as to GOD. And that Christ had something that was Divine under the Humane Nature which was properly the Son of God God the Word the Power and Wisdom of God We do not separate says he the Son of God from Jesus for both the Soul and Body of Jesus were strictly united with the Word of God and of the Body of Christ he says It was the Temple of God the Word St. Cyprian another Latine Father a Bishop of Africa and an eminent Martyr writing to Quirinus against the Jews mentioneth divers Scriptures to prove Christ to be God as Isa 45. Psal 46. and proves That Christ being God and Man became Mediator between us and his Father In his Epistle to Cecilian speaking of Christ saith He is the Power Reason and Wisdom of God he descended into the Virgin and was God mixt with Man he is our God our Christ And to name no
more c. 11. speaking of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ he says That as Nature teacheth that he that is born of Man is Man so it teacheth that he that is born of God is God Theognostus of Alexandria as Athanasius quotes him taught the same Doctrine That the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father as is Beams from the Sun and as the Sun is not lessened by the effusion of its Beams so neither is the Substance of the Father diminished by begetting the Son the Image of himself Dionisius Romanus wrote an Epistle against the Sabellians wherein he says It is necessary that the Word of God be united to the God of all and that the holy Spirit remains in God and so the holy Trinity doth unite in One as in a certain Head viz. the Omnipotent God of the Universe And he confutes those who hold the Son of God to be made as other Creatures as being contrary to the Scripture Lastly That the Trinity is not to be divided into three Gods nor the Dignity of it to be lessened by the name of a Creature but we are to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his Son and in the Holy Spirit And that the Son is united to the Father he proves from the words of our Saviour I and the Father are one for thus the Divine Trinity and the preaching of that Holy Monarchy is preserved Dionisius of Alexandria whom the Arians boasted to be of their Party wrote against them in his own defence an Epistle which he calls a Resutation wherein he declares That he never was of the Opinion of Arius but that he alway thought our Lord to be the Word and Wisdom undivided from the Father For saith he under the name of the Father I imply that he hath a Son and when I mention the Son I understand also that he hath a Father and so I joyn them together for from whom should the Son come but from the Father But the Arians will not understand that the Son cannot be separated from the Father the names implying a communion between them and the Holy Ghost is in both and cannot be separated from him that sends him How then can you suspect me who use those Names to have thought that they may be divided or separated wherefore you accuse me falsly as if I had denied that Christ is Consubstantial with God Thus I said that the Plant proceeds from the Seed or Root and is another thing from that from whence it proceeds yet is it of the same nature with that whence it proceeds the River which flows from the Fountain hath another name for we do not call the River the Fountain nor the Fountain the River yet both do exist and the Fountain is as a Father but the River is Water flowing from the Fountain Greg. Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocesaria hath left us this Confession of his Faith recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 28. There is one God the Father of the Living Word the Subsisting Wisdom the Eternal Power and Character the perfect Father of him that is perfect the Father of the only Begotten There is one Lord alone from him that is alone God of God the Character and Image of the Deity the efficacious Word the Wisdom comprehending the constitution of all things and the effective Power of all things the true Son of the true Father invisible of him that is invisible incorruptible from him that is incorruptible immortal and eternal And there is one Holy Spirit that hath its existence of God who by the Son hath appeared unto Men the perfect Image of the perfect Son the Life and Cause of the Living the Holy Fountain Sanctity and Giver of Sanctification in whom God the Father is manifest who is above all and in all and God the Son which is in all The perfect Trinity which is not divided nor separated in Glory Eternity Kingdom and Power so that there is nothing in the Trinity that is created or servile nothing added or superinducted which was not before The Son was never wanting to the Father nor the Spirit to the Son but the Trinity alway remained the same immutable and invariable In the Life-time of this Greg. Thaumaturgus a Synod of Bishops met at Antioch to Censure the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus who denied the Deity of Christ These Bishops denounced an Anathema against him having first admonished him of his Heresie and in that Epistle they say That they declare the Faith which they received from the beginning and alway held in the Catholick Church from the Apostles to that day even from those that had seen with their eyes and were made Ministers of the Word and which was preached in the Law and Prophets and in the New Testament And the Faith concerning Christ they say is this That he is the Word the Wisdom and Power of God that was before all Ages God the Son of God in substance and subsistance Pierius a Presbyter of Alexandria was of the same Opinion as Photius relates Cod. 119. That the Father and the Son were of one Substance and Equality St. Lucian a Presbyter of Antioch published the same Faith which is to be seen in Socrates l. 2. c. 10. We believe in one God the Father Almighty Maker of all things and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten Son by whom all things were made begotten of the Father before all Ages God of God Whole of Whole Sole of Sole Perfect of Perfect King of King Lord of Lord the Living Word Wisdom Life the true Light Way and Truth the Resurrection Pastor and Gate not obnoxious to Change or Alteration every way the express Image of the Father's Deity Substance Power Counsel and Glory the first Begotten of every Creature who was with God in the beginning God the Word as is said in the Scripture who in the last times came down from Heaven and was born of a Virgin according to the Scripture and in the Holy Ghost which is given to Believers to comfort sanctifie and consummate them as our Lord Christ commanded his Disciples go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are three in Person but agree in One. Arnobius gives the like Testimony That Christ without any Instrument Help or Rule but by the power of his own Nature made all things and as it was worthy of God nothing that was hurtful but all beneficial and this is the property of the true God to deny his bounty to none Lastly Lactantius whom the Arians claim to be of their Opinion says thus When we say God the Father and God the Son we do not speak of what is diverse or separated because neither the Father can be so called without the Son nor the Son be begotten without the Father seeing therefore the Father makes the Son and the Son makes him a Father there is in both one Mind one Spirit and
in prejudice of the Text but for the help of reasoning from the Text. First It is agreed that there is a Trinity and in this Trinity there is a Priority of Origination acknowledged by all So Smalsius I deny not that there is Father Son and Holy Ghost and that this may be called a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers say of the Son that he is God of God Light of Light true God of true God which expressions imply at least a Prerogative of Order though not of Nature in which respect Eusebius Caesar scarce deserves to be accused of Arianism by the Papists for affirming the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father against the Arians only he is observed to hesitate at their Co-equality where if he only mean the Co-equality of Order not of Nature he may pass for a good Catholick Secondly It is agreed that Christ is truly and properly called the Son of the Living God seeing he took his Original not after Humane manner from mortal Seed but was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb by the Holy Spirit over-shaddowing her and the Power of the most High coming upon her and is therefore called the Son of God Luke 1.35 Thirdly It is agreed that Christ is expresly called God in respect of his Mission office and Dominion and therefore is exalted above all Creatures to be adored with Divine Worship together with the Father and to be invoked as the Searcher of Hearts and Omnipotent as Smalcius confesseth in his Book of the Divinity of Christ and Socinus in his Defence against Christianus Franken The Question then may be reduced to these Terms Whether Christ the Messias the Redeemer and Saviour of us all be God not by Donation only from the Father by Pre-eminence of Authority or Dominion but by Nature not as to Indetermination Continuation or Signification Eviternal but Eternal without beginning or end not of an inferior or another but of the same Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost not of alike but the same Nature as the Ancients speak and as our second Article expresseth it Consubstantial here the Papists Lutherans the Greek Asian and African Church affirm as we do The Transilvanians some Polonians and some Apostate Hollanders as appears by their Writings which are in too many hands do deny The principal Arguments for Confirmation of our part are these Here we shall not heap up all the Arguments but choose such as time will permit to handle 1. From the Text Thou art Christ the Son of the living God whence I argue The Son is of the same Nature with the Father so Man begets Man c. but Christ is the Son of God the first begotten not the first created the only begotten his proper Son therefore he is of the same Essence with the Father and consequently as is exprest in the first Article of the same Power and Eternity Crellius endeavours to avoid the edge of this Answer by this sorry Evasion That the Son of God signifies no more than the Anointed of God so that he is called Son not by Nature but Unction and therefore the addition of The living God is omitted in St. Mark and Luke Ans This is to find fault with the Text rather than the Inference from it as if St. Matthew did intend to deceive and not inform us and were to be corrected by St. Mark and St. Luke as Crellius would have it 2. 'T is no contradiction to say less than had been said by another now in St. John we have the same Confession as herein Matthew Joh. 6.69 3. By Unction Kings and Priests are made but Sons by Generation and therefore the Word Son expresseth his Person as the word Christ his Office Christ and the Son of God signifies the same Person but not in the same respect Socinus objects That the same manner of expression is Isa 1.10 where the Israelites are called the Sons of the Living God not that they were Sons co-essential with God but that they were Sons of the Living God as opposed to Idols whence it appears this Epithet of God viz. Living shews of what sort of God Christ is Son not what sort of Son he is To which we answer That by the Adversary's confession this Epithet Living declares what sort of God the Father is therefore I infer that it shews also what sort of Son the Son is as the Maxim is Qualis pater talis filius i. e. In living Beings he that begets and he that is begotten is of the same sort 2. In Hosea Sons of the Living God are opposed to such as were not the People of God not as if they were natural Sons but adopted by calling not by being begotten as it is express They shall be called c. Rom. 9.26 So that here is no relation to Idols who neither beget nor are begotten 3. The Text shews the Son of the Living God is opposed to the Son of a Mortal Man as being of a more excellent kind for all saw him to be the Son of Man some said the Baptist others that Elias or Jeremiah were revived But this inspired Confession of St. Peter signifies something more sublime Q. P. we profess that thou art not meerly the Son of mortal Man as the Baptist and others of Humane Seed but that thou art the Son of that Eternal God which alway liveth As therefore he was of the same Nature with his Mother as the Son of Man so it is necessary that he be of the same Nature with the Father as the Son of the Living God Here Ostorodius objects That begetting of a Son implys the Mortality of the Parent for to what purpose are Sons begotten but to continue the succession of those that are mortal Ans This is very acute as if there were no difference between natural and temporal Generations and this which is eternal and ineffable Sons are adopted to supply succession and did the Ancient of days adopt the Son of Man for succession's sake See to what our Rationalists reduce the matter Socinus more distinctly explains the Mystery It is not to be denied that the Power of God did convey into or create in the Virgin 's womb some substance out of which conjoyn'd with that which was of the Virgin 's substance Christ became true Man who on that account had not only the Virgin for his Mother but God also for his Father considered as Man Ans Where doth the Scripture speak of this Socinian Mass Yes say they The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the most High over-shaddow thee True but doth it follow hence that he â—â—eated any such Substance as they feign this is Logick above our apprehension The Text speaks of a Vertue and Power not of any Substance now a Son is product from the Substance of the Father and in likeness of Nature whence he is called Son of the Virgin not of the Holy Ghost who communicated a power of Conception to her
produced these Scriptures He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also I and the Father are one And I in the Father and the Father in me Which Scripture were commonly used by the Noetians and Samosatenians Patris voluit esse substantiam solidam propriam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filium autem sanctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as our Doctor renders it Wisdom and Power to act Sandius goes on Sabellius compared the Father to the Hyposi asis of the Sun the Son to the Light and Rays the Holy Ghost to its Calefaction he so taught the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one that they were but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence his Followers as Sandius observes were called Patropassians as teaching God the Father by the assumption of Humane Nature to be called the Son and in that Nature the Father suffered because one and the same God was Father Son and Holy Ghost without distinction of Persons which as Lirinensis said was to confound the Trinity and as our Doctor doth make it to consist of one Substance and two Proprieties or Energies viz. to Think and to Act. The Doctor says that Thought is the first begotten Son of God that Thought is a Word brought forth and is the same in substance with the Mind whence it issueth but if it issueth from the Mind it becomes separate and cannot be any longer the same with the Mind And this Opinion is the same which Philastrius notes to be the Opinion of Paulus of Samosata That the Word was not the substantial Son of God co-eternal with the Father but the Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enunciative or prolative Word only an aery Sound not a living and sempeternal Person co-equal with the Father An Opinion somewhat like that of Mr. Hobbs concerning the Trinity which he makes God the Father speaking by Moses in the Old Testament and by Christ in the New Sandius observes the like of Cosmas who taught with Sabellius That the Word of God was naked and without any subsistence which his Followers called Verbum vocale enunciativum and sometime internal or mental p. 117. And he tells us that though the Modern Socinians detest the Error of Sabellius yet they are ignorantly guilty of it p. 120. Near of kin are the Doctor 's new Notions of the second Person in the Holy Trinity to the old Heresies so often condemned making the second Person a Thought the third a Power and he might have named as many more of the Divine Propriety viz. Holiness Love Justice c. as would have made a Denary of Persons The Doctor describes the third Person in the Trinity by Power and Action and this description he says is constantly used in the Holy Scripture Though we find the Attribute of Holy more frequently annexed to that of the Spirit as Eph. 4.30 Grieve not the holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and the Holy Ghost in almost an hundred places We find also that of Power attributed to the second Person more eminently than to the third as 1 Cor. 1.24 Christ is called the power of God and the wisdom of God Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Hebr. 1.3 He upholds all things by the word of his power Matth. 9.6 The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins And he that made and upholds and shall judge all Men may most properly be called the power of God How vain then is that boast of the Doctor 's p. 49. That this his way of tracing the Holy Trinity agrees to a syllable with the words of the Holy Scripture and the Church of England and is more plain to be understood and proved than that magisterial way vulgarly used wherein Reason is not permitted to speak p. 50. This is Platonis fastum Majore fastu to oppose his private Reason against both the Reason and Authority of that Church whereof he professeth himself a Son and impose on it an old Heresie in a new Dress Bellar. in Cronol says That Fr. David held the Son and Holy Spirit to be Virtutes Dei non distinctas a Patre persona relatione vel essentiae Chap. 8. p. 53. Treateth of the Incarnation The Doctor entituled Chap. 7. of the first Edition thus Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured first because Impertinent And he endeavours to prove it impertinent to our Lord's design viz. That we should enquire after the Dignity of his Person that he was the Eternal Son of God this he calls Boys play and Push-pin and quotes the Judgment of Constantine for it When the Game as he calls it was first set on foot Then p. 29. of the first Edition It was no more necessary to understand the Dignity of the Person of Christ than for a Traveller to understand the Features of the Sun Now p. 55. of the new Edition If we regard the Dignity of the Person it is plainly more honourable to believe him God the Creator than a Creature Deified Then p. 30. he says That part of Mankind which our Lord most favoureth are most unable to pay him such a belief Now p. 54. If we consider the thing it self it appears much more credible that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the Nature of Man than that a Man should be made God endued with a new Omniscience to hear and Omnipotence to grant the Prayers of all Supplicants Then it was fruitless to the Enquirer's satisfaction p. 31. Now p. 55. If we consider the fruits our thankfulness must be greater our love more inflamed our obedience more quickned our hatred to sin more sharpned and all the good ends of Faith much more promoted Then it was dangerous lest we should blaspheme p. 36. and because we have no firm ground to go upon Now p. 55. Upon all accounts were the Scriptures so doubtful as to leave us to our choice we ought rather to carry our biass toward our Lord 's eternal Divinity than against it In this and what other Disputes may arise for I have not leisure to enquire what other Additions or Alterations are made I doubt not but the Rector of Exeter-Colledge will sufficiently answer the private Opinions of Dr. A. B. In the mean time I am very glad to hear and heartily congratulate the Doctor for what he hath declared p. 53. That though there be in the Trinity a great Mystery yet now nothing is more plain than that of St. John The word became flesh and dwelt among us or those words of St. Paul Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the flesh And that these and several other words of Scripture so plainly speak our Lord's Divinity that whoever otherwise interprets them will no less rob the words of their meaning than Christ of his honour And what is there in this wonderful Mystery that Reason cannot comprehend p. 54. And
I hope he will make his Notion more intelligible how a Thought which he calls the first-begotten Son of God may also be called the only begotten Son of God And how a Thought or Word mental or declared could intimately vitally and perfectly unite itself to a divinely begotten Child which whatever he says to the contrary is much more obscure than what the Scripture and the Church of England have said When he says p. 54. He can see no great reason why Socinus who contended for the Worship of Christ should also contend against his Eternity I should think he means he sees no reason for it at all and seeing he hath so much Charity for those that altogether deny our Saviour's Deity and dare not worship or invoke him at all as not to deny them the Name of Christians or hope of Salvation I beseech him to extend a more affectionate and real love and good will to all such as heartily profess to believe the one and sincerely devote themselves to the practice of the other But this seeming Reproof of Socinus for his Opinion concerning the Divinity of Christ is no more than that for which David Franken and others that agreed with Socinus to deny his eternal Deity did more severely reprimand him for viz. for worshipping him whom he affirmed to be but a Creature contrary to the Scripture To confute and silence this new Notion of the Doctor and to shew how much more intelligible and rational the Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God as professed in the Church of England is I shall inform the Reader of that demonstrative Explanation of it which the learned Dr. Pearson Bishop of Chester hath elaborated Dr. Pearson on the Creed p. 267. Printed 1659. The third assertion to be demonstrated is That the Divine Essence which Christ had as the Word before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary he had not of himself but by communication from God the Father for this can not be denied That there can be but one Essence properly Divine and so but one God of infinite Wisdom Power and Majesty that there can be but one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being because a Plurality of more Persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ who is certainly not the Father cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine Nature originally of himself and consequently being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the Eternal God he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him from the Father All things whatever the Father hath are mine saith Christ John 16.15 Because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead and more than that the Father cannot have p. 269. Being the Divine Nature as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal is also indivisible Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated to him but the whole by which he must be acknowledged co-essential of the same Substance with the Father as the Council of Nice determined and the Fathers before them taught Hence Christ says I and the Father are one Joh. 10.30 which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him and though Christ saith The Father is in me and I in him yet withal he saith I came out from the Father by the former shewing the Divinity of his Essence by the later the Origination of himself We must not look on the Divine Nature as sterile but rather acknowledge and admire the secundity and communicability of itself upon which the Creation of the World dependeth God making all things by his Word to whom he first communicated that Omnipotency which is the cause of all things The fourth assertion followeth which is That the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father is the Generation of the Son and Christ who was eternally God not of himself but from the Father is the Eternal Son of God That God alway had a Son appears by Agur's Question Who hath established all the ends of the Earth What is his Name And what is his Son's Name if thou canst tell And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour wherefore he frequently inculcates that Blasphemy in his Alchoran that God hath no such Son nor any equal with him and his Disciples have corrupted the Psalm of David Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee into Thou art my Prophet I have educated thee But by the consent of the ancient Jews and the interpretation of the blessed Apostles we know these words belong to Christ and in the most proper sense to him alone Now that the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father was the true and proper Generation by which he hath begotten the Son will thus appear because the most proper Generation which we know is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same Nature with a full representation of him from whom he is produced Thus Man begetteth a Son that is produceth another Man of the same humane Nature with himself and this production as a perfect Generation becomes the foundation of the relation of Paternity in him that produceth and of Filiation in him that is produced This is the known Confession of all Men That a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the same Nature with him The similitude in which the Propriety of Generation is preserved is that which consists in identity of Nature and this communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude from whence Christ is called The Image of God the brightness of his Glory the express Image of his Person Then he proceeds to shew That this communication of the Divine Essence is a more proper Generation than any Generation of the Creatures not only because it is in a more perfect manner but also because the identity of Nature is most perfect As in the Divine Essence we acknowledge all the Perfections of the Creature substracting all the Imperfections which adhere to them in things below so in communication we must look upon the reality without any kind of defect blemish or impurity In humane Generation the Son is begotten in the same Nature with the Father which is performed by derivation or decision of part of the Substance of the Parent but this decision includeth imperfection because it supposeth the Substance divisible and consequently corporeal whereas the Essence of God is incorporeal spiritual and indivisible and therefore his Nature is really communicated not by derivation or decision but by a total and plenary communication In natural Generation the Father necessarily precedeth the Son and begets one younger than himself for seeing Generation is for the perpetuity of the Species where the individuals successively fail it is sufficient if the