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
of the Church of England where this Christian Religion is established Every good Protestant will readily answer these Queries And notwithstanding the Protestation of the Doctor in the close of his Epistle to the Reader That he is not conscious of having contradicted any of the Church's Articles in any one word The impartial Reader will perceive by what hath been discovered to be the design of the Naked Gospel in the foregoing Exercitations that it was mainly intended against the most important of those Articles I only recommend to the Doctor 's serious Consideration that as it is an unaccountable Phrensie for any that abhors Popery and Slavery to grow weary of the present Government and to desire the return of the late King by a French Power so it is the highest degree of impiety for a Person that hath been long educated and instructed in the Doctrine of the Church of England which teacheth to adore the blessed Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords not only to dethrone but debase him as a meer Creature and esteem no otherwise of him than as a King de Facto made and advanced by Imperial and Papal Edicts and Decrees not so ancient as Constantine but by Theodosius and Damasus bishop of Rome See p. 38. of the Edition in two Colums From what Point the Wind blew that hath caused the Doctor to steer a course contrary to what he intended at his first setting out is not so intelligible as to guess at what Harbor he intends to lay up he doth seemingly at least recant many of those Heretical Opinions which he had asserted in the first Edition of the Naked Gospel but so inconsistently that the New Piece which he hath patcht on upon the Old Garment will make the Rent worse But this is no other artifice than what hath been practised by the Arians and Socinians heretofore whose feigned Confessions and Recantations they on occasion recanted again and their later Deeds have been worse than the former Chap. 7. of the Holy Trinity The D.'s first care is to give us a right notion of the usual words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Person which he would translate beingness and propriety The word Substance he says p. 45. is so much applied to matter that some with great confidence deride it as a contradiction to say that a Substance can be immaterial of this Opinion were Vorstius and Hobs and how much the Doctor differs from them that which follows may evidence The more we attend to our own Senses says the Doctor or Aristotle's Predicaments the more strongly are our Minds possest that Substance must be material c. As to the word Person p. 46. he says Could we be as sensible that the word Person in its metaphysical height is no less improperly applied to the second Distinction in the Trinity than the word Begotten is in its Physical baseness and could we cast away that improper word and use the warier word Subsistence and Propriety we should more easily satisfie our selves and others Wherefore taking the word Substance for Subsistence and Person for Propriety he proceeds to give us a new Notion of the Trinity such as agrees with the Doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius That the one high God is both Father Son and Holy Ghost His Positions are these 1. That God is a Being absolutely perfect 2. That Mind is the most perfect Being The same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Original being derived from none but Author of all and therefore properly stiled the Father As Mind is the most perfect Being so the most perfect Being must be a perfect Mind but an unthinking Mind cannot be a perfect one God therefore was never unthinking and since thought is the first and proper Issue of a thinking Mind therefore may it most properly be stiled The first begotten Son and co-eternal with the Father because the Father was never before him p. 48. A thought is no less than a word conceived and a word is no more than a thought brought forth The Mind or its Wisdom cannot be absolutely perfect if they do not or cannot perform or want Power to act there must therefore be a third Person which the Scripture calls the Holy Ghost which is constantly described by Power and Action This is the Doctor 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he thinks he hath obliged all Mankind displayed the Mystery of the Trinity which hath been the trouble of all Ages and in which he hath not advanced one Proposition without warrant from the Scripture the Church of England the Fathers of the Church and the best Champions for that Doctrine and that which is his greatest hope is that the Unitarians will not dissent from one of them if taken in that sence which their terms freely offer p. 51. And I fear it is to serve their Hypothesis that the Doctor hath conceived and published this Notion It is not a little surprising that the Doctrine which was so lately ridicul'd under the term Mystery and which must remain so still a point of Push-pin Divinity The Athanasian Doctrine fit to be numbred with the Roman and would be fairly dealt with if left on the same level with the Arian equally unworthy not onely of our Faith but our Study see The Naked Gospel printed in two Columns p. 38. A long and mischievous Controversie and Behold now the ground on which one of our Fundamental Articles is built should now deserve another Ecce to behold p. 49. of the Doctor 's Edition how the very Light of Nature demonstrates St. John's Mystery There are three that bear witness in heaven c. And p. 53. How our Platonizing Doctor confutes the Atheists who accuse this Mystery as contrary to Reason which he now saith reason in Plato discovereth the Doctor having adapted a Natural Trinity for his Natural Religion But the Doctor is conscious of another Error viz. That he hath Sabellionized with Sabellius for mentioning St. Augustine's Opinion concerning the Trinity p. 50. says that it favors more of Sabellianism than his as above explained As the Doctor 's Opinion is by him explained it may serve as the Center wherein all the Opinions of the Ancient and Modern Hereticks may meet and acquiesce Vm. Lirinensis asks Quis ante sceleratum Sabellium Unitatis Trinitatem consundere Ausus est Whoever so confounded the Doctrine of the Trinity as the impious Sabellius Of whom Sandius says Sabelliani tribuendo patri essentiam filio scientiam sancto vitam videntur negasse subsistentiam filii sancti Sandius p. 120. Consonant to this our Doctor says The Mind is Beingness or the Father the Son is Wisdom the Holy Ghost is Power and Activity Again Sandius p. 111. Sabellius taught the one God in Essence and Substance to be the Father Son and Holy Ghost which three he called three Vertues or Proprieties three Names three Persons and for proof of this Opinion
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he calls it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God and the Divine Word the Idea of Idea's and says That it is the beginning and end of the good pleasure of God that it abides with God that God had a power of Generation that the First-begotten is comprehended in the Mind only Tractat. Allegor Post sex dies and in the Treatise of the Modesty of Women the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called The Eternal Character of God and is God Now these obscure Notions which both Jews and Gentiles had of the Son of God are by St. John more plainly delivered for the Instruction of all Men and applied to the Person of our Saviour to convince us that he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this Word is God that God that was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and that they beheld his Glory the Glory of the only begotten Son of God full of Grace and Truth And the Jews in our Saviour's time concluded That Christ calling himself the Son of God made himself equal When our Saviour requires our belief of such Propositions as exceed our understanding it is a contempt and undervaluing of his Authority and Veracity to expect Demonstrations for them The Notion of a Christian is one that believes in Christ and St. August Serm. de Tempore 189 speaks of Adult Persons that were Baptized saying I am now one of the Faithful and believe what I cannot comprehend And St. Basil de S. S. c. 7. I testifie saith he to all that profess Christ and yet deny him to be God that Christ shall profit them nothing What Philosopher knows the Nature and Motions of his own Soul how it informs the Body and is Tota in toto tota in qualibet parte or by what Ligaments it is united to the Body and shall we presume not to believe the Union of the Godhead to the Manhood and other Revelations of the Gospel because our Reason cannot demonstrate how these things can be Si potes Cape si non potes Crede saith St. August Tract in John 35. The way to get a right understanding in spiritual things is to believe and practice them 'T is not we know and believe in Matters of our Salvation but we believe and are sure as the Original is Joh. 6.69 Believe that thou mayst understand saith St. Aug. on St. John Tract 29. If ye believe not that I am he saith our Saviour i. e. he that said Joh. 8.16 I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me I whom if you had known you should have known the Father also v. 19. I that came to die for your sins If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins It is well saith an ingenious Commentator that he said not Except you know that I am he ye shall die in your sins Tu rationare ego miror tu disputa ego Credam saith St. Augustine Do you reason I admire do you dispute I will believe And what was that he would believe Ipse Deus tria est unum quodque horum trium Deus est Omnia tria non Dii sed Deus est i. e. God is Three and each of these Three is God and all Three are not many but One God Tertullian was a Person of as profound Reason as any Socinian yet he submitted it to Revelation Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus Credibile quia ineptum certum est quia impossibile And Christianorum est Deum mortuum credere contra Marcion l. 2. n. 41. When in the Primitive Times Adult Persons were baptized they were question'd thus Credis in Deum Patrem the answer was Credo and so Credis in Deum filium Credis in Deum Spiritum Sanctam And hence they were called The Faithful St. Ambrose de Sacrament l. 2. c. 7. 1. The Doctor adds And if we descend to particulars in the Doctrines that are imposed as Articles of Faith the more Objections will rise in force and number By the way it is necessary to consider of what sort of Faith and Articles thereof he speaks if of an Antinomian Faith as separated from new Obedience and such Articles as are the Inventions and Impositions of Men then the Doctor acts impertinently and fights his own Shadow which he would ill resent His following Discourse will evidence what Faith he speaks of for p. 13. col 2. It is says he an acknowledged foundation in all Sciences that we must seek Truth by application of generals to particulars and it is the general scope of the Gospel to advance Natural Religion 'T is then the Faith of the Gospel which he treats of under his Notion of advancing Natural Religion and the sting of the Objection he says is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath one among Vices So that the truth of Evangelical Precepts and Revelations must be sought and approved by application of the Generals in Natural Religion The Objection which he says hath a Sting p. 13. Col. 2. is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath among Vices The Doctor well knows that the Faith we of the Church of England do profess is such a Faith as for the Objects of it is contained in the Creeds which we receive and such as for the nature of it doth work by Love and doth both purifie the heart and makes the Believer fruitful in every good Work a Faith that keeps us humble and holy not presuming to be justified by the merit of any Works of our own but through the Satisfaction made by Christ for which God will accept us and our sincere Obedience not imputing our Sins to us Moreover we acknowledge this Faith to be the Gift and the Work of God in us as Joh. 6.28 and St. Paul To you it is given not only to believe but to suffer And Phil. 1.29 By faith ye are saved and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Ephes 2.8 This is the Faith which he would make as Naked as his Gospel as if it were an effect of natural Reason as the Pelagians hold and wholly in our power without any operation of the Spirit of Christ without whom we can do nothing as to obtaining of the Grace of Faith or bringing forth the Fruits of Holiness If this be the Faith which he opposeth a belief of the Holy Trinity the Redemption of Mankind by the Eternal Son of God the Operation of the Holy Spirit in our Sanctification as it clearly appears he leaves all Christians in a State of Nature without any remedy by the Fountain of Grace of whose Fulness we have all received grace for grace In this Chapter Page 14. the Doctor mentioning that Scripture Rom. 4. ult Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification he says That though the
was prevailed with to subscribe but returning home to Spain Athanasius says that Hosius on his Death-bed repented complaining of the Violences which were offered him and anathematized the Arians charging all the People to avoid that Heresie Athanasius gives him an excellent Character and in allusion to his Name says He was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a Holy Man Another Synod was made up by some of these Men at Sirmium where they condemned as well the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being not Scriptural words and 't is observed that in their address to the Emperour among other Titles which they gave him they termed him Eternal which they denied to grant to the Son of God whom they affirmed to be a Creature This Synod was held Anno Dom. 359. But there needed yet a farther Confirmation of the Arian Doctrine and therefore the Emperour is perswaded to send to the Bishop of Rome to summon all the Bishops of the Latine as the Emperour undertook for the Bishops of the Greek Church and there was like to be so great a concourse that one place was not thought capable to entertain them wherefore Ariminum in Italy was appointed for the Western and Selucia for the Eastern Bishops Here Valens finding the Nicene Faith likely to be confirmed read a Creed very like to that of the Nicene one only expression being subtily inserted viz. That Christ was not a Creature like unto other Creatures and all the rest being agreeable to the Nicene Faith they were unwarily prevailed with to sign that Creed which implied our Saviour to be a Creature the same after much Controversie was confirm'd at Selucia by the means of Leonas whom the Emperour sent there for that purpose Some of the Eastern Bishops in their Return stayed at a place called Nice in Thracia where they confirmed the same Faith thinking to recommend it to the common People under the name of the Nicene Faith These were headed by Ursacius And at Antioch some others met Anno. 360. and condemned the use of the word Substance whence they were called Anomaeans and Exoucontians But about this time Constantius dies viz. Anno 361 whose great business was to establish the Arian Faith imploying the Bishops in one Synod after another and influencing them all by his own Presence or his Deputies and his Threatning Letters But on his Death-bed it is said he repented of these three things 1. That he had caused the Death of so many of his Kindred 2ly That he had named Julian to be his Successor in the Empire And 3ly That he had occasioned so many Troubles and Innovations in the Church and Faith See Theoderet l. 3. c. 1. p. 125. But Athanasius survived him many Years and died in a good old Age having established the Foundation of the Christian Faith and thereupon raised a perpetual Monument of his Learning and Piety which shall be happily remembred in all Places where the Gospel is preached Chap. 9. He says The Dispute is dangerous and the Danger is twofold 1. Of Blasphemy 2. Contention 1. Concerning Blasphemy They who held the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thought to blaspheme as denying that the Son had any substance of his own The others were accused as Heathen that brought in the Worship of many Gods And thus he says either Party charged the other with Blasphemy As for the Arians it may well be thought that they had their superior and inferior Gods in that they worshipped a Created God but the Consubstantialists worshipped one God only i. e. the Trinity in Unity There is no doubt a Blasphemy against the Son of God when as the Pharisees that would have stoned him because he said he was the Son of God thinking that he acted by the help of Belzeebub the Prince of Devils and if they had only denied him to have wrought his Miracles by the Spirit of God this had been a Blaspemy An ancient Divine of our Church Mr. Porter writing of the Incarnation of our Saviour gives his sence of Matth. 12.31 32. which I only repeat and leave the Reader to judge of it being alien from the common Interpretation Christ having cast out a Devil by his Divine Spirit the Pharisees knowing it must be done by some supernatural Power would not grant it to be by the Power of God but of the Devil our Saviour convinceth them that it was done by the Spirit of God tho' they would not acknowledge it but against the Evidence of a Divine Power blasphemed the Spirit by which our Saviour had done that Miracle They had reproached him as a Man before calling him a gluttonous Person a Wine-bibber a friend of Publicans and Sinners This was remissius ventire de felio hominis But when they blaspheme the Spirit of God by which he had cast out a Devil as if by consent of Devils he had cast them out this he denounceth an unpardonable Sin the Sin against the Holy Ghost i. e. saith he Against the spirit of God in Christ not taken personally for the Holy Ghost but essentially for the Godhead of Christ for which he quotes St. Basil saying Spiritus appellatio est Communis tribus personis And Tertul. Jesus Christus est Spiritus dei St. August also Quia deus Spiritus est potest dici Pater est Spiritus filius est spiritus c. 2. He says the Pharisees had not heard of the Person of the Holy Ghost of which some of the Disciples were not fully instructed The Question was Whether Christ acted by the Spirit and Power of God or the Devil And Christ proves he did it by the Spirit i. e. by the Power of the Godhead The sence then of our Saviour's Answer to make it pertinent to the Objection is this What I have now done I have proved to be done by the Spirit of God and though what you have spoken against me as the Son of Man may be forgiven yet what you or any other shall speak against me as the Son of God shall never be forgiven Therefore he concludes that to deny the Deity of Christ is that Blasphemy for to rob Christ of his Godhead which is the foundation of the Remission of Sins is to exclude ourselves from that benefit Qui negat deum in Christo caret omni Misericordia He that denies Christ to be God cannot obtain mercy Hence the Fathers affirm Arius and Julian who denyed the Deity of Christ to be guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost 2 St. John 4.3 Every spirit or doctrine Qui soluit Jesum So St. Heirom Prosp c. read that Text That divides the Deity of Christ from his Humanity is Antichrist St. Ambrose de Fide And he is Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 2.22 He adds It is dangerous because we have no firm footing from Scripture Antiquity or Councils Which because he only affirms without shew of proof it will be sufficient to
call me Ishi my Husband for v. 19. I will betroth thee to me for ever c. 1 Kings 8.39 and 2 Cron. 6.30 compared with Revel 2.23 The words are Thou only knowest the hearts of the sons of men All the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the Hearts and Reins to give to every Man according to his works The Argument is this The God of Israel only knows the hearts of Men Christ knows the hearts of Men therefore Christ is the God of Israel Both these Propositions are express Scriptures therefore the Consequence is undeniable Isa 63.1 compared with Revel 19.13 c. The words are Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed garments I that spake in righteousness mighty to save St. John speaking of Christ says He was clothed with a vesture dipt in bloud and his name is called the Word of God Now the Prophet speaks of the God of Israel and St. John applys it to Christ as by the Context in both doth appear therefore Christ is the God of Israel These among many others may suffice concerning the Harmony of both Testaments to which I may add those express Testimonies concerning the whole Trinity in the New Testament The first that I shall mention is such of which I may say as the Doctor doth of his Fundamentals p. 43. c. 1. That if all the rest of the Scripture were lost this alone would be sufficient to confute the Socinians viz. Mat. 28.19 Go ye and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost where we have three distinct Persons of equal Dignity and Power to whom under the same Name we dedicate ourselves and promise Worship and Obedience The Socinians are not ashamed to say That this place is added by Athanasius or some of his Perswasion though not only the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Fathers may evince the contrary but it is read in all the Greek Copies the Syriack and Aethiopick and Ignatius Tertullian and other Fathers have quoted and expounded this Text and the Socinians retain it in their German Edition of that Gospel An. 1630. 2ly They object That to be baptized in the Name of any doth not conclude him to be God seeing the Israelites were baptized into Moses and some Disciples into the Baptism of John Acts 19.3 Ans To be baptized into Moses was to be baptized by the Ministry or Hand of Moses as the Syriack Version reads and hence St. Paul says That none of the Corinthians were baptized in his name 1 Cor. 1.14 15. lest any should infer that he expected Obedience from them And it is one thing to be baptized in the Name of John and another to be baptized by the Administration of St. John's Baptism the import of Baptism is to believe as we have been baptized and to Worship as we believe i. e. The Father Son and Holy Ghost There are many other Scriptures that confirm the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Judgment of our Divines as Joh. 15.26 When the Comforter is come whom I will send from the Father where we have the Father from whom the Son by whom and the Person of the Holy Ghost that is sent So also 2 Cor. 13.13 in that Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost we have a plain distinction of three Persons the Authors of the same Grace So also 1 Cor. 12.5 6. And there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and diversities of administrations but the same Lord and there are diversities of operations but the same God where we have three Persons and but one God It is evident from these and many other Scriptures that by Concession of the Arians our Saviour had the Divine Attributes of Omnipotence and Omniscience communicated to him and if these were imparted to him by his Father it is not against reason that that other Attribute of Eternity might be also for to be Omnipotent and Omniscient implies an Infinity as the properties of the Eternal God nor can our Saviour be thought less than Infinite when we believe that he hears the Prayers searcheth the Hearts and knows the Thoughts of all Men and shall come to be the Judge of all without which Attributes he could not judge rightly The Creation and Conservation of all things do prove the same for he that made all things is God And so doth his being the only Law-giver and the only Judge and to qualifie him for these Offices he must be God to bind our Consciences to his Laws and to judge righteous Judgment And shall not the Judge of all the Earth judge righteously which none can do but the Omniscient and Omnipotent God Estius one of the best School-men asserts That no Creature can be so highly elevated by a supernatural power as to co-operate by way of a Physical Instrument in the Creation because it is a property that belongs to such an Instrument to have something of its own whereby to week dispositive for the effecting of the Creation Whence he says no Creature can be assumed to the power of Creation as a Physical Instrument the nature of that Instrument still remaining And nothing can be the cause of Creation which hath not an infinite Power because by how much the Form to be produced is removed from the Power of Production by so much a greater power is required in the Agent so that for the production of something out of nothing there is required an infinite Power because the distance between something and nothing is infinite so that our Saviour being as the Scripture affirms the Creator of the World he is also God over all blessed for ever Hence Origen against Celsus proves That God neither did nor could make the World by any thing without himself as the Angels of which it was discoursed were and hence he concludes That Christ by whom the World was made was God See also Ireneus l. 2.55 and l. 4. c. 37. St. Peter in Epistle 2.2.1 speaking of false Prophets that privily should bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought them says That they should bring upon themselves swift destruction And v. 3. Their judgment lingreth not and their damnation slumbreth not It may therefore be a good argument with many a person not yet infected with such Heresies to give a short Account of the manifest Judgments of God upon the chief Founders and Patrons of the Arian and Socinian Doctrines for for such Opinions of the Doctrines of the Gnosticks Cerinthus and Ebion c. which had infected the Asian Churches and for the wicked Lives of such as entertained those Heretical Doctrines it was that they had their Candle-stick removed and were left in Darkness and under the Dominion of Mahomet to this day Olimpius an ancient Arian Bishop publickly blasphemed our Saviour in a Bath and suddenly felt as it were three
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
in his Disputation against Socinus concerning the Adoration of Christ where be adds that Jesus signifieth a Saviour but who can so save us as the Father Socinus replys That the name Jesus here is the proper name of a Person not an Appellative of his Office for then it should be read O Lord of Jesus which though they do confute the trifling of Franken in the Interpretation of this place yet they do not answer it by shewing how Adoration may be given to Christ whom they account to be a Creature seeing that of Isa 42.8 saith expresly I am Jehovah that is my name and my glory will I not give to another This Knot Socinus could not untie with all his skill 5ly We might urge the Works of Christ 1. The Creation for by him all things were made Col. 1.16 2. Conservation He sustains all things by the word of his power Heb. 1.3 3. He wrought Miracles in his Name and Authority 4. He forgave Sins Mat. 9.5 He sent the Holy Ghost Acts 2. Which things do exalt him above the rank of Creatures but because the Adversaries do refer all these things to a delegated and derived Power and not to an innate Power which we have already proved this may suffice In the last place we shall shew some Absurdities which will follow on this Heterodoxy of our Adversaries for if Christ being of the same Nature with the Father were not the Supreme God it would follow that the Scriptures do exhibit to us great Uncertainties in the great business of Salvation 2ly That the Churches the Councils the Fathers of all sorts of all Ages in all places have recommended to Posterity Heretical Creeds and monstrous Comments 3ly That the Martyrs have sealed ridiculous things with their Bloud 4ly That we have given up our names in Baptism to a Creature as well as to a Creator and Worship and Invocate a Creature with the same Religious Worship And seeing it is acknowledged that Christ sent the Holy Ghost which received from Christ what he delivered John 16.14 It would follow 5ly That a Creature did contribute something to the Eternal Power and made use of his Service 6ly From hence it may be concluded that our Mediator was insufficient for so great an Office seeing all that he did perform was due Debt every Creature being so subject to the Creator that it can merit nothing from him Whence it followeth lastly That the publication of the Law was in vain and the punishment threatned to Offenders frustrate because it was impossible that a Finite Creature could satisfie Infinite Justice Therefore if our Saviour be not only the Son of Man but also the Eternal Son of the Living God that Lord God the Α and Ω which is which was and is to come the Almighty if he were in the beginning with God if he is God over all blessed for ever if he thought it no Robbery to be equal with God and the essential Attributes of Jehova are every-where attributed to him if he did by his own Power do such Works as no Creature could do then those Blasphemies which follow on the Opinions of the Adversaries are intolerable and we may truly and confidently conclude Jesus Christ our Saviour to be of the same Essence and Power with the Father and Holy Spirit which was to be demonstrated An Answer to the Objections of the Adversaries Jo. Crellius in his two Books of One God the Father urgeth sixty two Objections which we will reduce to seven Heads under which the rest will be easily considered and confuted First He argues from exclusive Particles that the Father only is the Supreme God So Joh. 17.3 This is life eternal to know thee only the true God There is one God the Father of all who is above all Eph. 4.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things 1 Cor. 8.6 And Rom. 16.27 To God only wise be glory Hence he concludes that Christ is not the Supreme God 1. Answer in general These Particles do exclude only the Creatures and Idols not the Persons of the Son or Holy Ghost and the Particle only in S. John doth not limit the word thee but God and it may be referred to the word know as if it had been said This is sufficient to eternal Life if they only know him that did send and him that was sent or as St. Chrysostom reads This is life eternal to know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God otherwise nothing is to be known concerning Christ but that he is sent To that in the Corinth as it is attributed to the Father that he is the One God so Christ is called the One Lord now if because the Father is called the One God the Son be excluded from the Deity by the same reason because the Son is called the One Lord the Father may be excluded from being our Lord. The same Answer serves to that in Ephes 4. and Jude 4. as to that of Rom. 16. it expresly includes Christ the Wisdom of God as the name God also includes the Trinity where there is not a distinct mention of Persons 2ly They urge our Saviours own Confession Of that day and hour knoweth none neither the Angels in heaven nor the Son and as St. Mark adds But the Father only Therefore the Son is not Omniscient and by consequence he is not the Supreme God Ans No one knows i. e. no Creature for so Christ appeared and was accounted by them that questioned with him But this doth not exclude Christ as God nor the Holy Spirit which searcheth the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2.10 Thus when it is read No man knoweth who the Father is but the Son will you therefore conclude that the Father knoweth not himself or that the Holy Ghost knows him not Or when you read that none knows the things of God but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.11 therefore the Son and the Father do not know the things of God Men of reason should be ashamed of such an Inference The word alone therefore doth not exclude all simply but such in a certain sort whom it concerned not to know and therefore ought to watch lest that day should come on them sleeping and unprepared 2ly Others add that the word knoweth doth not denote simply to know a thing but as in the Hebrew Conjugation Hephil to make others know which they confirm from 1 Cor. 2.2 I determined not to know any thing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified i. e. it is my Office not to teach any other thing But I think this not so applicable for then neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit did so know as to teach or make others to know it But Christ as the Son of Man did not know it simply but as the Son of God the same God with the Father and the Holy Spirit 3ly They urge two Visions the first from Dan. 7.13 14. Where
reason than as it is necessary for our encouragement to Holiness in order to Happiness we dishonour him because no other reason is worthy of his Majesty or Goodness This indeed is one great end viz. our Salvation in which the Glory of God and our Saviour are also concern'd that as we believe in God we should also believe in Christ John 5. and that all Men should honour the Son as they honour the Father and the honour of the Son tends to the honour of the Father therefore we need Faith in the Merits of Christ and his Intercession and Mediation to present our Prayers to God and that we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace Nor doth this derogate from the Glory due to God for all tends to the Glory of God the Father And he that honoreth not the Son 〈…〉 honoreth not the Father We cannot honour the Father more than by believing that he so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son to die for us for the greater the Gift is the greater is our Obligation to Gratitude and Obedience So that what the Doctor urgeth to the disparagement of Faith That the Precepts requiring Faith and the Promises encouraging it were calculated for those Primitive Times and are now ceased is to recommend Infidelity and not Faith and plain it is that his chief design is to exalt Natural Religion on the Ruins of Christian Faith which will also take off the Motives and Encouragements to Obedience and Thankfulness Chap. 6. In this Chapter he enquires what are those saving Truths to the belief whereof Eternal Life is promised These truths he says concern the Person in whom or the Word which we believe on credit of the Person Here he enquires first what kind of Person our Saviour requires us to believe him to be this Person he describes from 7 Dan. 13. To be one to whom was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all nations and kingdoms should serve him The Title there given him is the Son of Man which in the Jewish Idiom imports the eminence of the Subject spoken of that is a Man of some singular note but a Man still Another Idiom of the Jews for advancing a thing or Person was to intitle it to God as Rivers of God and Mountains of God so Man of God and Son of God by Daniel are made a Character of the greatest Beauty and Majesty but a Creature still He mentioneth also that Character which Christ assumed The only begotten Son of God these Characters speak him a Person of super-eminent and unmeasurable Greatness like his Emblem the Light and that is but a Creature which whatever the Traveller believes it to be still it is his faithful Guide But have we no other benefit from the Sun but its light only Doth it not also warm comfort and enliven us Yet the Scriptures gives more noble operations to Faith it is as much the life of the Soul as the Soul is of the Body it gives spirit and motion to every faculty of the Soul so the Apostle Gal. 2.20 I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me But our Doctor frustrates this Grace of God for if Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain what good can the Light do to a Traveller that wants legs and life or that is blind from his birth As to his two Idioms I only ask the Doctor Why when that Scripture calls Christ the Son of Man it means a Man of Eminence and Perfection So when it calls him the Son of God doth it not mean a perfect and supreme God The Doctor objects from John 10.36 that our Saviour spake nothing what he had been from Eternity when if ever he ought to have done it but only what he was in relation to other Messengers of God Smalcius confesseth that in this Scripture John 10.36 Christ affirmed himself to be God yet in his Answer to Smaglâ—cius he minceth the matter and says Christ did neither affirm nor deny himself to be God for he doth not say v. 30. Say ye that I blaspheme because I said I am God but say ye that I blaspheme because I said I am the Son of God But Smalcius says as the Doctor does That if Christ had been the very God he ought to have expresly affirmed it See Cloppenburgh's Anti-Smalcius p. 309. This of St. John being one of the best pieces of Armor wherein the Socinians put their trust to defend themselves against all the Arguments for our Saviour's Deity we must trie what Mettle it is made of P. 28. Col. 1. he thus infers That it seemeth plain as by other Evidence so by Christ's own words that a practical Faith is all that our Saviour requires for when the Jews came about him and said How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly And he in answer thereto called God his Father They took up Stones to stone him because said they thou being a Man makest thyself God He did not on so urgent occasion assert his Right but abating so much as exceeded their comprehension satisfied himself that he might satisfy them with what might be sufficient for their Conviction to Salvation Is it not written in your Law I have said you are God's c. He speaketh nothing of what he had been from Eternity in himself but what he was in relation to the World and in comparison with all other Messengers of God To them says he God sent his Word by their betters but it is not sent to me by my betters but by me to my inferiors They were sent into the World the common way and were afterward sanctified by receiving God's word N. B. but I was first sanctified and afterward sent and if they who were less extraordinary were honoured with a higher Title can it be Blasphemy in me who am their Superior if I take a meaner Title This Scripture is made the Corner-stone of all the Socinian Babel which they endeavour with all their Art and Might to establish and raise as a Tower of Defence against the Power of Heaven and Earth The late Author of Thoughts on Dr. Sherlock 's Vindication of the Trinity makes it the Subject of his Letter he says p. 3. c. 1. That Christ brought in a sence of Unction and Sanctification instead of a sence of Nature i. e. a Socinian sence instead of an Orthodox And c. 2. That the Orthodox as they call themselves can no way escape because if Christ made use of the reason taken from his Sanctification he has at the same time given away the former from the eternal Generation P. 4. c. 1. he says That the other Passages which Dr. Sherlock alledgeth for Confirmation viz. of the eternal Generation as that the Word was with God he