not to oppose the concurring judgments of so many great and holy Men with our private sentiments 't is more probable that we should be deceived than they and though God might pardon our mistakes when we take care they should go no farther than our selves yet we cannot be so sure of that when we endeavour to bring others likewise into our errours A good Man though he could not be convinced of the truth oft heir determinations yet out of duty and respect to so great an Authority would not go openly to condemn them for though he looked upon their determinations not as inerrable Declarations of Faith yet he would take them for the best expedients of Unity so that if he happened to be mistaken in his Sentiments which are contrary to their Declarations and should withal endeavour to corrupt others by diffusing them this would be to make breaches in the Church which would be more prejudicial to him than his own errour this might make him guilty at the same time of Heresy and Schism too So that I take an acquiescence in the determinations of general Councils or any such like humane Authority to be so far from Credulousness that 't is a great part of prudent Caution and Wariness and that we should be far the more credulous and conceited Fools if we could believe that our private opinion was sufficient to weigh down theirs or that God would suffer the establishments of these great and holy Men to be pulled down and destroyed by the propagation of our conceptions CHAP. V. Why Faith made a greater Figure under the Gospel than it did under the Law THE Authour spends this long Chapter in shewing what a greater necessity there was in the Primitive Times of Christianity of a strong Faith than there is now which made our Saviour to recommend it then so much to his Disciples Which he illustrates by the instance of Loyalty which is but mean and inconsiderable in peaceable times and not worth a reward from the Prince but in time of danger when a Man ventures his Life to serve him 't is then a Virtue of a larger extent and ought to be encouraged by the greatest rewards He proceeds to shew the particular necessity of Faith at that time First From the difficulties which hindred the believing of the Gospel to the Gentiles who despised the meanness of the Gospel to the Jews who were prejudiced by the fond opinion they had of their own Law and by the expectation of a pompous Messias Secondly From the danger which the Gospel brought in exposing its Professors to Persecutions c. Thirdly Upon account of the Methods of the Gospel which was to be Preached to the whole Heathen World These are the extraordinary means he says why Faith was so much recommended at that time the ordinary were the serviceableness of this Vertue to Religion and Holiness which do continue still so that God does not load his Servants with more Faith than is absolutely necessary to Salvation for if he should do this he says he must do it with reason or without reason if without reason that would contradict his Wisdom if with reason that can be no other but in order to the piety and happiness of Man And this is the sum of this Chapter Now any one may see what the design of all this is to make the belief of our Saviour's Divinity and the Doctrine of the Trinity to be no part of the Faith delivered to the Saints and that those great exhortations to Faith the Scripture gives had no relation to the Faith of our Saviour's Divinity and that they were not urged to strengthen them against any difficulties they might conceive in this Doctrine but only to confirm them against those other difficulties and dangers which he there mentions Now though 't is very true that these difficulties which the Author mentions were such as did deter many from espousing Christianity so that there was need of a greater Faith than ordinary at that time to conquer them yet he does not enumerate all the difficulties their Faith was to superate but leaves out that principal end of Faith which was to give life to all the rest that Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God This Doctrine was so strange and wonderful both to Jews and Gentiles that it frighted many Proselites away from Christianity so that how much soever the fondness of the Jews to their own Law and the meanness of our Saviour's appearance might hinder them from complying with his Religion yet this Doctrine of his being the Eternal Son of God and equal with his rather was such a hard saying a truth so difficult to mens natural reason at first appearance that they ought to have had as great incouragement to confirm their Faith in this point as to support them against any of those difficulties which our Authour mentions And this we find to be the great scandal all along to the Jews For Joh. 5. when our Saviour declares to them his original his being the Son of God and his co-operating with the Father My Father worketh hitherto and I work therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him because he not only had broken the Sabbath but said also that God was his Father making himself equal with God And so Joh 6. 58. when our Saviour declares himself to be the Bread which came down from Heaven many of his Disciples when they heard this said This is a hard saying who can bear it And so likewise v. 52. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before It follows that from that time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him And again Joh. 8. upon our Saviour's declaring to the Jews that he was the Son of God they are all so enraged as to tell him that he is a Samaritan and hath a Devil Joh. 8. 15. And so likewise v. 58. upon his saying before Abraham was I am they took up stones to cast at him The like offence they took at his forgiving sins Mat. 9. 11. or at any other word or action of his which did any ways seem to infer his Divinity So that there was a great deal of need of a very strong and vigorous Faith to believe in the Divinity of Christ at that time especially when they had so many prejudices to deterr them from it And besides we find that our Saviour does greatly incourage and commend those that did heartily believe and make a ready profession of it Thus Mat. 16. when Peter made that eminent confession of our Saviour's Divinity Thou art the Son of the living God he immediately gives him his blessing and entails that great Promise upon him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Joh. 16. 18. And so Joh. 20. 28. when Thomas made that most express confession of our Lord's Divinity upon occasion
AN ANSWER TO AN Heretical Book Called the Naked Gospel Which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxford Aug. 19. 1690. With some Reflections on Dr. Bury's New Edition of that BOOK To which is added a short HISTORY of Socinianism By William Nicholls M. A. Fellow of Merton College in Oxford and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Ralph Earl of Mountague 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Nomoc. Tit. 12. c. 2. LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. TO THE Right Honourable RALPH EARL of MOUNTAGUE c. My Lord I Am induced to lay these Papers at your Lordship's Feet both from the Relation I bear to your Lordship which does exact all my Labours as a Tribute and Acknowledgment of my Duty and Obligation as also from the Knowledge of the great Affection and Zeal You have always continued to shew for the True Religion assuring my self that whatsoever shall be offered in Defence of that especially against the now growing Heresie of the Times will find no small Acceptance in your Lordship's Favour It is sufficiently known my Lord what a signal Example of True Christian Piety and Courage against the Anti-trinitarian Heterodoxes was shewn by the excellent Sir Ralph Winwood your Lordship's Grandfather when he was Embassadour in Holland for King James I. in so strenuously opposing Vorstius the Socinian's Accession to the Professorship of Leyden whose Advice if the States had then been so prudent as to have taken the Socinian Heresies had not made the Progress in the World as now they have from the Lectures of him and his Successours in that Chair And therefore my Lord I am encouraged to think that your Lordship who does possess all the Noble Endowments of that great and good Statesman your Ancestor will favourably look upon that which is designed against those Heretical Tenets the Seeds of which have been mostly sown in this Nation by the Books of Vorstius and his Successours though often under Colour of Opinions of a more specious Name May it therefore please your Lordship to accept these my poor Endeavours in Defence of the True Faith which I have here presumed to entitle to your Lordship's Protection and be pleased to look on them as a small Token of the Duty and Service which shall be always owing to your Lordship from My Lord Your Lordship 's Most Dutiful Chaplain and most Obedient Servant W. Nicholls THE PREFACE THE occasion of writing this Treatise was to hinder the mischief that the Book it is designed to Answer was like to do which having lain so many Months without an Answer I did reasonably presume there was none design'd and therefore I thought such a one as I could supply would be better than none at all I should never have troubled the World with this if I had had the least Item of Mr. Long 's design but that was perfectly unknown to me till these Papers were wrote out fair for the Press As to the Method I have taken in the answering this Book I have followed the Authour in his own and have given his Titles to each of the Chapters In those Chapters in which he most impugns our Saviour's Divinity I have traced him step by step and given an Answer to every Shadow of an Argument that he brings In other Chapters where there are only oblique stroaks against the Doctrine of the Trinity or which are only Introductory to his main Design I have only summed up the Substance of them and so given an Answer to them in general or at least to so much of them as seemed to make against the Truth of this Doctrine or any other important Truth of our Religion Now it may by some perhaps be thought unfair when I use these Expressions The Authour would insinuate would pretend c. when he does not in express Terms assert that thing in his Book But it must be considered That it was the Authour's design not to let his Book appear with too Heretical a Face but to lay his Premises so that the Reader should often draw his Consequences for him without his setting them down in express Words This is a Subtilty which is common to all such sort of Writers that dare not speak out their full Minds though by the way I think this Authour has as little minced the matter as any But however I have carefully endeavoured not to pervert his Sense but to take his words in that meaning which any indifferent Reader would think the Author designed they should be understood in If I have any where mist his Meaning 't is thro' Mistake and not thro' Wilfulness And in truth I am not absolutely sure after the greatest Diligence that I have always hit his Sense for he has a peculiar way of Writing different from all the Writers of the age his Periods are long and uneven filled with odd sort of Similes and affected Phrases broken with unnatural Parentheses and almost constant Hyperbatons which to be sure will occasion Obscurity in his Book so that if I have mistaken his Meaning upon this account he is to charge that upon himself and not upon his Answerer In short I have performed this Task with all the fairness I could with a design not to triumph over my Adversary but to evince the Truth to vindicate the Honour of my Blessed Saviour which was here so highly calumniated and to assert the Doctrine of the Holy undivided Trinity into the belief of which I was baptized and in which I hope by God's grace to die THE CONTENTS OF THE ANSWER to the PREFACE THE Doctrine of the Trinity could give no incouragement to Mahometanism The true Reasons of the great prevailing of Mahomet's Religion Animadversion upon the Authour's mistake about the establishment of Image-worship Vpon his saying Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith The Heterodox greater furtherers of Mahometanism than the Orthodox That the belief of the Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion That the requiring a belief of this Doctrine does not suppose unlearned Men to understand all the disputes about it The Socinian Doctrines much fuller of niceties than the Orthodox CHAP. I. Necessary to be believed and necessary to Salvation not the same The chief Rules of Christianity not easily discernible by the light of nature by instance of Tully and Aristotle Doctrine of the Trinity not contrary to the fewness of Christian Precepts How all the Gospel is Faith and Repentance CHAP. II. That we are justified by Faith alone proved by Scripture Antiquity c. This Faith ought to be Orthodox in all fundamentals The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as to justify Men by it CHAP. III. What natural Faith is Faith under the Gospel is an inspired habit or grace proved by Scripture Antiquity c. The Faith of Abraham and the
Christian conclusion That the wonderful Progress of the Gospel was not a more powerful evidence of its Divine Authority than the Progress of Mahometanism was for that of the Alchoran But then again upon second thoughts he is a little for recalling himself and gives the Advantage somewhat on the Gospel side from the power of Arms which the Arabian Doctor used and something from the imparity of his Doctrines themselves and the life of their Authour whom he calls a lewd brain-sick Scoundrel with much more good manners and reverence than he termed our Saviour just before a crucified Vagabond And then a little after he is so just to Christianity again as to grant that Mahometanism had not the advantage against her in truth of Doctrine but only by permission of Divine Providence which had predicted the removal of the Candlestick out of its place but the great occasions of this removal he tells us were the great Innovations made in Christianity and the hot Disputes especially concerning the First and Second Persons of the Trinity which had so changed the Gospel that were an Apostle to return into the world he would be so far from owning that he would not be able to understand it and so leaves it as a moot Point whether Mahomet or the Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel Though at last he seems to determine it against the Doctors and for Mahomet because he allows him to have professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith which the Doctors it seems had destroyed and because their Doctrines of the Trinity had provoked our Lord to divorce himself from his Churches and so did incourage and impower the false Prophet to seduce and ruin them This is the substance of half his Preface the parts of which hang so loose without any connection and are so odly jumbled together that I dare say hardly ever any Man of Letters before our Author drew a Conclusion from premises so loosely laid and I am afraid his Friends the Socinians are too great Lovers of Reason to hope for much credit or advantage to their Cause from one that is so little a Master of ordinary Logick For in all this â—â—ddle of words here is not one tittle of proof of the thing he would be at and what is worse 't is somewhat difficult to know what that is all that one can guess from what he has been saying is That the determinations of the Councils and the Writings and Disputes of the Fathers concerning the blessed Trinity against the Hereticks were the chief causes of the prevailing of the Mahometan Religion He mentions indeed with these the Doctrine of Image-worship but that is only to shew the Doctrine of the Trinity in bad Company for 't is plain by the tenour of his Book that his design was not against the worship of Images I shall therefore shew First That the Doctrine of the Trinity could give no occasion to the progress of Mahometanism Secondly What were the occasion of the prevailing of it and this I presume will be a full Answer to the first half of his Preface First That the Doctrine of the Trinity could give no occasion to the progress of Mahometanism As for the Doctrine it self I cannot see how that should gain Mahomet Proselytes any more than any other Doctrine of Christianity the Impostor himself disliked it 't is true because as long as this Doctrine was believed his pretended Revelations would never be received for 't would be in vain for him to offer to the World his Doctrines which were contrary to those that were before delivered by the Eternal Son of God He pretended to be no more than a meer Prophet and therefore could never presume to undo what was believed to be setled personally by God himself Besides the silliness of his arguing against the Generation of the Son shewed that he little understood the merits of that Cause one of whose Arguments is what Servetus the Reviver of this Authour's Heresy borrowed from him because God forsooth has no Wife So that there is the same reason why this Deceiver should condemn this Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity which obstructed his Ambition as he did that of Christian Mortification and Self-denial which obstructed his Lust And the Author with the same reason might arraign all the admirable Lectures the holy Scripture gives us of Abstinence and Chastity for false Doctrine too only because they were condemned by this Impostor But as for the disputes about this Doctrine at the time of Mahomet's appearing they were well-nigh laid asleep the Arian Doctrines were almost forgot by the eager disputes in the Apollinarian Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies and the Council of Chalcedon had fully determined the last Controversy nigh 200 years before the World heard any thing of Mahomet The number of the Arians at this time was very small and they were chiefly at that time according to Sandius himself in Spain and their Disputes there could not give any great scandal to the Saracens on the other side the World The greatest Controversies now on foot were in the East the Monothelites or the Assertors of one Will in Christ in the West was still remaining the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter And these the Impostor takes no notice of unless he includes them in the general amongst the Divisions which he did condemn amongst the Christians 2. Now secondly As to the certain reasons why Mahometanism should with such a violent inundation of a sudden over-run the Eastern World they can be known only to God himself the great Disposer of all Events whose Judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out But if we turn our Eyes upon second Causes we may find several at this time which either of themselves helped the spreading of this false Prophet's Impostures or at least provoked God to permit this contagion to prevail Which were first The Calamitous Estate of Christendom at that time nay the whole World was under that commotion which it never felt before and by God's Grace never may again The Goths and Hunns the Avares Lumbards and Bulgarians were ravaging all the Western Empire the Saxons not long before had over-run Britain and the Persians were making as great devastations in the East so that the Christians were not in a Capacity of resisting their other Enemies much less of hindering the Incursions of the Saracens Secondly The Negligence of the Popes and Patriarchs who lay wrangling in the defence of their Errours and in gaining Privileges and Precedencies to their Sees and did not lend any assistance towards the securing their Flocks from this Wolf till 't was past all recovery and even the holy Wars which the Popes were so zealous for afterwards seem'd designed more to keep the hands of active Princes a-work least they should attempt any thing against their See or out of an odd Superstition to the Holy Land and our Saviour's Sepulcher than out of any
is and bring as a proof of this that Text of Isai 53. Who shall declare his generation But then upon second thoughts least the People should laugh at their Inconstancy they themselves revoke this second Creed and strive to get in all the Copies of it and procure an Edict from the Emperour which threatens all those that shall detain them Now indeed we may see here a very foolish inconstancy in these Hereticks and that they had a very ill hand at making Creeds to oblige all the World under the pain of an Anathema to believe such a thing at one time and the next day to disbelieve it themselves but this is nothing to the Orthodox Faith which stood always firm and unchangeable After the Authour has been spitting his Venom against the union of the three Persons he now begins to do the same against the union of Christ's Divinity with his humanity For he would have that upon supposition there are three persons in the same Individual nature that either the Nestorian or the Eutychian Doctrine was the true For says he there are but two ways imaginable in reason either Christ must be two Persons because he has two such different natures or he must have but one nature because he is but one Person But for all our Authours hast why can't we imagine a third way that he should be two Natures and but one Person This is as easy to imagine and I am sure as reasonable too For first It does not follow that because he has two Natures he must be two Persons for Nature and Personality are not reciprocal terms for there may be two or three or more Natures where there is but one Person The Athanasian Creed most excellently expresses this As the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ There is the sensitive nature in Man as well as the rational there is the rational Soul one distinct substance united to the Body another distinct substance and yet these two so distinct Natures are but one Person Now what more contradiction does it imply that there should be a Personal Union between Divinity and Humanity than there does between Rationality and Sensibility If there be any more difficulty in one than the other it is this That in the former the union of the Divinity with the Humanity there is an union of two reasonable Natures which are distinct Persons of themselves as all rational Individuals are and therefore they must be as distinct Persons after the union as before But why so If they are united they are not distinct for all union is a negation of distinction or division Two single pieces or pounds of Gold are two distinct Substances or Bodies but if these be united by melting down into one they are still two pounds but yet they are but one Individual Body And so it is in the Union of all other Bodies Well but what is this to the Union of Spirits or rational Beings Yet it is something for if Spirits be united they must follow the Laws of Union as well as other Beings If they be united they must be one in something for to be one in nothing is no Union at all Now in the Union of the Divinity with the humanity wherein possibly can their Oneness consist but only in their personality Their Natures are most certainly distinct for Gods is one Nature and Mans is another and therefore if they be one in any thing it must be in their Personality Upon this Union they acquire an Oneness which they had not before and as the two distinct pounds of Gold upon their melting become one Individual piece which is the Oneness they gain so the Divinity and Humanity upon their Union gain one Individual Personality which is the Oneness they acquire Well but here are two rational Natures united which must have two Reasons and two Wills and therefore must be two Persons It does not therefore follow that because there are two Reasons and two Wills there must therefore be two Persons any more than it follows that a Man is three living Creatures from the Union of the Vegetative the Sensitive and the Rational Soul in his nature For as the Subordination of these Souls one to another make him but one Vivens so the Subordination of these rational Natures one to the other make them but one Person or rational Suppositum The Divine Nature is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or governing Principle in the Union of the Godhead with the Humanity as the rational Soul is in the Union with the two other Souls and therefore though there are two Reasons and two Wills yet those of the Inferiour Nature are subordinate to the Superiour and therefore are determined by the operations of that Nor Secondly is it necessary that if he be one Person he should be but one Nature because Nature and Person are not reciprocal terms and because as we have already shewn that more Natures may be united into one Person for 't was the Person of the Godhead that took upon him the Humanity so that he has no other Personality than what he had from all eternity but yet he has another Nature than what he had from all eternity because he likewise took upon him our Nature which he had not from eternity but took it upon him at that time when he was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin Though he still continued one Person yet he had two Natures the Nature of God which he had from all eternity and the Nature of Man which he assumed at that particular time and this without any change but only in the manner of his subsisting which was before in the pure Glory of the Son of God and afterwards in the habit of our Flesh All the Properties of each Nature are as distinguishable now as before the Properties of the Humanity are incommunicable to the Divinity and those of the Divinity to the Humanity 'T is proper only to the Divinity to be the cause of all things to be immense eternal omnipresent c. and 't is proper only to the Humanity to have a beginning to be circumscribed in place to be passible c. If therefore they have these distinct and incommunicable Propertie they must have distinct Natures from which these Properties flow though they be united into one Person And thus I think I have answered every thing that is material in this Chapter and I could very willingly have done with it but only because it may be expected I should say something to those invidious Remarks he makes upon some of the first holy Councils for the Determinations they made in matters of Faith and the condemnation of Hereticks As to what he says about the Heresie of Nestorius 't is not worth considering but he has a little too grosly represented the matter of Eutyches which I must not pass over without a little Reflection He would insinuate that Eutyches was first
pretty reasons why the Latin Bishops were more easily lead by the Bishop of Rome than the Greeks were he supposing their Zeal for the Orthodox Doctrine to be only in compliance with that Bishop which are First by reason of the Greatness of his City and Secondly the Smallness of their Understandings I believe he brought in this Great and Small rather for a Witticism than a Reason But why should they be lead by the Greatness of his City Men are wont to be jealous of every over-grown Power and are sooner apt to oppose than assist it But why should not the Bishop of Constantinople by the same rule have as many always at his command And why should not poor Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria a mighty City too draw as many of his Neighbours of his side But the Authour is afraid that this Argument from the Greatness of the City wo'n't do much and therefore he don't much insist upon it but that from the Smallness of the Latin Bishops Understandings he thinks is a good one and this he endeavours to back with some proof viz with a Story of the Latin Bishops not apprehending a captious Question which was put in the Council of Ariminum Now every one knows how easie it is for designing Knavery to impose upon well-meaning Honesty A little Subtilty with a great deal of Dishonesty will over-reach a great number of wise and honest Men. Several of these tricks all that have read this History know were used in this very Council The Question was put whether they believed in Homo-ousium or in Christ If the Orthodox had said they believed in Homo-ousium the Arians would have scoffed at them for believing only in a word And when they said they believed in Christ and not in Homo-ousium they pretended they had given up their cause by discharging the Homo-ousium Now 't is but too frequent to find in many great Assemblies that the Espousers of the true side are cheated out of their Voices by the fraudulent putting of the Question and that possibly might be the case here But besides there was another reason for their then refusing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Hereticks had gotten a sense of the word which favoured their Heresy so that the Fathers did not reject the word but only their sense of it This long and mischievous Controversy as he calls it he says was at last setled by Theodosius which according to his compute in his last Paragraph was as he expresses it after a hundred and fifty years strugling But I am afraid he is a little out of his Chronology again for he is mistaken but the odd hundred years or thereabouts For set the contest of Arius with Alexander the highest in the year 315 from that time to this Edict of Theodosius in the year 379 are but 64 years which are much short of his 150. But to pass over this what though this Controversy was setled by Theodosius Oh! the Authour has an abundance to say to that in his reflections at last upon his whole relation That this Doctrine now established i. e. the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity was advanced by gross partiality of the most guilty kind and at last imposed by a Novice Emperour upon implicit Faith in two Bishops c. and so on with a long ranting period of some twenty lines But to consider this a little A Novice in Christianity it is true this Emperour was because he received Baptism that year or the year before he published this Edict and yet the Edict might be never the worse for all that but to be sure he sufficiently understood the Christian Religion before he was admitted to Baptism and generally persons that come into the Church at those riper years do take better care to inform themselves before Baptism than others do after it But why must this be an implicit Faith in two Bishops He draws his Consequence from what Sezomen says when he gives an account of this Edict that the Emperour wills that all his subjects should embrace that Religion which Peter the Prince of the Apostles had from the beginning deliver'd to the Romans and which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria held If here be an implicit Faith here is one in three Bishops for Peter the Apostle was as good a Bishop as the other two and the same Faith is said to be of all three But how can he draw from these words that he had an implicit Faith in the other One certainly may use anothers Summary of Faith having found it conformable to God's word without believing implicitly as that other does as well as I can use another Mans Form of Devotion without praying implicitly with him Now the reason why these two names are used by the Emperour is because these Bishops were eminent Professours of the Orthodox Faith amidst the many Heretical Doctrines then in the World and were particular Defenders of it against Arianism If any Man should say he is for believing as the Ancient Fathers believed for continuing in that Faith in which the Athanasius's Cyrils Chrysostoms Nazianzens did that Faith which is still embraced and defended by the great and learned Men of our Church and not for believing as the little heedless Authour of the Naked Gospel does This would not be to believe implicitly on these great Men right or wrong but only to shew 't is more probable that their Faith is better grounded than that of every little trifling Heretick 'T is not worth while to examine all the Declamatory stuff he has brought towards the end of this Chapter for 't is a sure sign that Men want reason when they begin to declaim in such subjects but in truth the Authour has no very good hand at this neither for his strokes will raise no Mens Passions unless their Anger to see their Religion abused by such impudent and withal witless scurrility And indeed 't is enough to raise a Christians Zeal to an unusual Temper to hear him at the end of his false and patch'd relation of this Controversy to plume himself and vaunt as if he had struck the Orthodox Cause for ever dead Behold now the ground says he on which one of our fundamental Articles of Faith is built Behold the justice of that Plea which from such a possession would prescribe to our belief This and what after he says that the Athanasian are to be numbred with the Roman Doctrines is but common-place talk and what may be said upon any thing a Man has a mind to vilify though it be never so sacred The Authour in the close of this Chapter has hooked in some Arguments to make us have a favourable Opinion of the Arians and their Tenets though 't is nothing at all as far as I can see to his design in this Chapter The first is a very good one If Alexander himself the head of the Party could tolerate the Arians we can ill pretend
plainly enough described there but if the Authour wo'n't see them the Doctor can't find him Eyes and description too But let us see how the Authour has mended the matter in his handling the point But instead of giving us an enumeration of the particulars he has given us only some marks and qualifications of things to be believed which too if he had done it fairly enough would have been pretty well 1. And now the first qualification he makes for matters of Faith is That they be easily understood by the meanest capacity I hope the Authour does not mean that Men must understand every thing as far as they believe them and to believe nothing but what they have a perfect knowledge of for this would be to exclude all Faith out of the World and to make Men Scepticks in every thing but of which they had demonstrative Science If he means that there are no Fundamental Truths to be believed but what the meanest capacity can adequately comprehend the express modus of them this I am sure is more than ever he will be able to make out however he may attempt it As for what he brings of the poor having the Gospel preached unto them and that the light of the Gospel cannot be hid but to those whose eyes are blinded and of the simplicity which is in Christ these Texts the Authour has foisted in to no purpose and contrary to their intent and meaning for they are spoke only to shew that the Christian Religion did not consist in Pharisaical Glosses or deep Philosophical niceties knowable only by a few learned Men but in plain truths which any one of a mean capacity might perceive as far as was requisite for his Salvation And one of these I have shewn the Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be as to the belief of its existence in the Answer to the Preface But the Authour will have the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 10. 9. to judge it a great defect of Faith if there were any difficulty in it For my part I see nothing like such a judgment in this place of the Apostle that it argues a defect of Faith to have the matter of it difficult to believe Nay the reasoning of the Apostle there seems to be grounded upon the contrary to this If thou shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Christ from the dead thou shalt be saved That is if thou shalt believe such a wonderful thing as Christ's Resurrection which is so strange and difficult to be believed by all carnal Men thou shalt be saved But why should difficulty make a defect of Faith it has been generally looked upon as a great increase and exaltation of Faith when the matter has been hard to believe as in Abraham who believed against hope and whose Faith for this very reason the Authour did extraordinarily celebrate a Chapter or two before however he may have forgot himself now The calling of the Gentiles indeed he allows to be something of a Mystery and difficult to believe under the Gospel but he is very positive that in no other word of Scripture we meet the least intimation that Faith hath any hard task for the understanding to perform But I thought there might have been some difficulty in the belief of the Gospel it self by reason of our Saviour's calling his Religion a Yoke wherein Mens Carnal Reasons were to be subjugated as well as their Affections by his being set for the fall of many by reason that the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews and to the Greeks foolishness c. all which plainly shews there is at least some intimation of a difficulty for Faith under the Gospel 2. His second Qualification is That matter of Faith must be the express word of God This rule of the Authour holds well enough yea so well that I am afraid he will never stand by it when it comes to the Issue For if the Socinians or other Opposers of Christ's Divinity would once come to be determined by express Texts of Scripture that controversy would quickly be at an end For there are so many express Texts against them that we cannot desire more and these they will own are express as to the word and letter but then are forced to put false and strained Interpretations upon them to make them look another way For our Saviour is expresly called God Joh. 1. 1. The word was God Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Thomas calls him my Lord and my God So Heb. 1. 8. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever So the Divine Attributes are ascribed to him Omnipresence Joh. 14. 23. Matth. 28. 20. and 18. 20. Omnipotence Phil. 3. 21. Rev. 1. 8. Immutability Heb. 1. 11 12. Omniscience Joh. 21. 17. Joh. 11. 25. Rev. 11. 23. So likewise the Holy Ghost is called expresly God Act. 5. 4. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost thou hast not lied unto men but unto God v. 4. So are the Divine Attributes ascribed unto him As Omnipresence Psal 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. Eternity 1 Cor. 11. 10. Joh. 15. 26. Omniscience 1 Cor. 11. Omnipotence Luk. 11. 20. Luk. 1. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 11. These are not the tenth part of the places in Scriture which may be alledged for the proof of the Trinity besides that express one to prove a Trinity in Unity 1 John 5. 7. though without that there is enough to establish this Doctrine in the minds of all unprejudiced Men. And to see what work the Socinians make to invalidate these proofs what jejune and foolish interpretations they pass upon them so contrary oftentimes to the whole design and tenour of the Authours this would make any one think that they had taken up a Paradox to defend and were resolved to say any thing to maintain it rather than to be perfectly silent Well! but what if the relation between the written word and the rational consequence be so remote that none but a skilful Herald can drive its Pedigree Why this is not the case of the Doctrine of the Trinity for all the Authour's hast For first this is plainly asserted in that famous place of St. John 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Authority of this Text is good for all our Adversaries appeal to some Manuscripts to the contrary and we have St. Cyprian to vouch for it who is older than any Manuscripts they can pretend to But secondly supposing this Text was wanting in Scripture the Doctrine of the Trinity is plain enough for all that We have express assertion there that each of the three Persons are God by the places for instance we just now alledged and we are likewise assured as well from natural reason as from Scripture that God is but one Hear O Israel thy God is but one God Deut. 6. 9. Now any Man without any great skill in Heraldry or Logick
Principles of their Philosophy and the avowed Opinions of the great Masters in the Grecian Schools and therefore 't was but reasonable that the Apostles should give the greatest Encouragement they could to further the Belief of it when it lay under so many Prejudices amongst them CHAP. XI Of the Manner of the Resurrection whether in the same Body or another I cannot imagine why the Authour should single out this Heterodoxy alone out of all the Socinian Errours to join with his Denial of our Saviour's Divinity One would have thought He might rather have contested the Doctrine of the Satisfaction or the Divinity of the Holy Ghost which would have made his Book look more of a piece than now it does But why he should single out this above all the other Points of the Socinian Controversie I can give no reason for unless having talked about Resurrection in the last Chapter that gave him a hint to make a ramble into a discourse of it here How ever the Case stands I shall give an Answer to what he says against the received Doctrine of the Church in this Point as short and as plain as I can And in order to this I will shew First the Necessity of Mens rising again in the same numerical Bodies Secondly I shall answer those Arguments which this Authour brings against the Truth of this Doctrine First The Necessity of Mens rising again with same numerical Bodies they laid down in the Grave 'T is not easie to guess what 't is these Socinian Gentlemen would have to rise again if not the Body 't is impossible that the Soul should be said to rise again because that never fell for all Rising supposes a Falling Resurgere non est nisi ejus quod cecidit Nothing can rise but what has fell says Tertullian in the same case adv Marc. lib. 5. cap. 9. Therefore it does necessarily follow That 't is the Body must arise if there be any Resurrection Besides our Saviour who is the great Original and Archetype of our Resurrection or as the Apostle speaks the first fruits of them that sleep he arose in the same Body that he deposited in the Grave and therefore our Bodies that are to be fashioned like to his glorious Body must be the same Bodies as his was the same or else they will not be conformable to their Original but farther I know not what Truth can be revealed plainer than this is in the holy Scripture Not to insist upon Job 19. 26. I know that my Redeemer liveth c. nor on Dan. 12. 2. Many of them that sleep in the Dust c. though these are evident Proofs enough of this Doctrine yet several Texts in the New Testament are unexceptionable as particularly Joh. 5. 28 29. For the Hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation Now what is that which is in the graves but only the Bodies of Men to be sure their Souls are not there therefore if these Words have any propriety of speech it must be that then the Bodies of Men that are in their Graves shall arise The consequence of this is so plain that Smaltzius the Socinian will have this to be understood only in a figurative sense that nothing is meant here but the Calling of the Gentiles that by the Dead are meant Aliens from the Faith that by hearing the Voice of the Son is understood the Hearing the Gospel preached but how foolish this Interpretation is may be known from the Distinction which is here made of those that are to arise into Good and Bad. For if here be meant only such a Resurrection as he means from Sin to Grace then all were Bad because they all were in a state of Sin and so there is no room for the other Branch of the Distinction those that have done good so that this must be perfectly superfluous And so again this is as plain from Rom. 8. 11. He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you Where those Bodies which are to be quickned or revived are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mortal or dying Bodies and therefore the Bodies to be quickned or raised cannot be any other Bodies than those which did die Besides those Bodies are said to be quickned in which the Holy Ghost dwells now they are these very Bodies which are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3. 16. cap. 6. 15. therefore they are these very Bodies which are to be quickned or raised again To this may be added the constant Consent of the Catholick Church The Latins understood this by their Carnis resurrectionem in their Creed and the Greeks by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in theirs but of all the Aquileian Creed was most particular for this had hujus Carnis resurrectionem the Resurrection of this very Flesh This was the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers of the Church Justin Tertullian Anaxagoras Cyprian Austin Hierom and all others till the Socinians began to turn all the Articles of the Christian Faith upside down and among the rest to overthrow the Orthodox Belief of the Resurrection This is enough to shew that this was the belief of learned Men in the first Ages of the Church not was it less the belief of other Christians Or else what should be the cause that this Doctrine of the Resurrection should seem so difficult to be believed if the Ressurrection was nothing but the Soul 's being cloathed with another Body why should that be more hard to be credited than that God could cloath it with a Body at first For he that gave it a Body at first could with as great ease give it another Body when that was gone Here is no difficulty at all here but this was the thing that confounded their Faith how a Body should be raised again that had so long lain rotten in the Grave that had passed through so many Transmutations that was turned into the substance of so many different Bodies how all these scatter'd parts should leave the Bodies they should then help to make up and be ranged together into their old form This indeed would be apt to strain the Faith of a great many but no one could be so foolish to stand out against Christianity upon the incredibility of the other opinion Besides if this was not the Faith of the Ancient Christians what meant those malicious exprobrations of the Heathens to them by shewing them the Bodies of their Martyrs half devoured by Lyons by burning their Bodies and then scattering their Ashes into Rivers but only because they thought this did make the Resurrection they believed utterly impossible What else could be the meaning of the great care which the Primitive Christians took of
perhaps taedâ luceret in illâ Quâ stant arden◠and might as deservedly it may be have followed his Friends Gentilis and Servet out of the World the same way Nor can it reasonably be thought that any Sanctions can be too severe to maintain such important Points of our Faith against the Blasphemy of Hereticks and it would shew our State to have too little regard for Religion to punish the defacing of our Coin with Death and to have no Punishment for those that shall presume to adulterate our Faith Fourthly His next charge of Innovations upon us is That we advance Faith above Reason and against it But here is not a word of the Proof of this He tells us indeed that we must not believe God's word any further than we have reason to believe it is God's word and that it is unreasonable to believe a Mystery and that is all he says to this Point 1. Now as to the Believing in God's word we never say but that our Belief is grounded upon better Reason than that of the Anti-trinitarians is for all their great pretence to it and I am sure our Arguments from Scripture are a thousand times more rationally deduced than our Adversaries are and as to Antiquity they have not the least pretence to that Indeed we do not pretend to understand all that our Reason tells us we ought to believe and I think it is more reasonable to think we should not understand God's Nature than that we should 2. As to our believing a Mystery that is not less to be believed upon that account if we are sure it is true for we do not believe it because it is a Mystery but because it is a Truth Well but he says this word Mystery has not the same sense in the Scripture and other ancient Authours as we put upon it As to the use of this word among prophane Authours they understand by it a Truth which is known only to some few Men and is not further to be divulged And so principally the Rites of Ceres and Proserpine were called Mysteries because they were esteemed to be of so great Sacredness as in no ways to be revealed And therefore Suidas derives the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from shutting the Mouth But then by Analogy all other things that were kept secret were called Mysteries So Tully speaking of his Letters says which have so much of Mysteries in them that I ought not to trust them to my Amanuenses And in the holy Scripture there are other senses of the word than what the Authour mentions for every thing that is called a Mystery there is not a spiritual Truth wrapped up in a sensible nor yet only a Truth hidden from some Ages which two senses only the Authour will allow For sometimes a thing altogether incomprehensible as the Trinity is is called a Mystery 1 Tim. 3. 16. Without controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. Where the incomprehensible Truth of Christ's Incarnation is called a great Mystery And therefore says an ancient Father admirably well Great is the Mystery of Godliness not that it is unknown but because it is incomprehensible for it exceeds all power both of Expression and of Vnderstanding This perhaps the Apostle calls a great Mystery in allusion to the Ceremonies of those Deities that were called Great far inconsiderable Mysteries in respect of this Thus Diana who was worshipped with these Mysterious Rites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 19. 27. and Proserpine and Ceres that were worshipped with the Eleusinian Mysteries were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their Rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athen. Now whereas these Mysteries and Deities were great only by their not being discovered this Mystery of our Saviour in a more peculiar manner is great by its being incomprehensible Now the definition which St. Chrysostom gives of a Mystery takes in all these notions of the Word A Mystery is that which is unknown and secret and has also a great deal wonderful in it and a great deal incomprehensible But the Authour says 't is more than a hidden Mystery that is in his phrase a plain contradiction that the same thing should be hid and open to the same Persons and who denies it if he mean in the same respect But a thing may be hid in one respect and open in another 'T is open and reveal'd to us That our Saviour's Divinity is de facto united to his Humanity but the express modus how this Union is performed is hid to us That Father Son and Holy-Ghost are one God is revealed or open to us but the manner of their Hypostatical Union is altogether hid That these things are so is plain and open to us but how they are so is altogether unintelligible And this I think is no Contradiction ENQUIRY III. What Damages or Advantages have ensued upon the Changes and Additions which latter Ages have made in the Gospel THere need little be said to this Chapter because I hope I have made it in some measure appear That the Doctrine of the Trinity and particularly of the Divinity of our Saviour is no Addition made to the Gospel but is that which was first delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles and therefore this Supposition of the Authour 's being false whatever Conclusions he draws from it without any more ado will fall of themselves But because he has before reckoned the Doctrine of the Trinity among the Papal Corruptions or as he speaks the Athanasian among the Romish Doctrines and by the Tenour of his whole Book has been proving this Doctrine an Innovation though he do not particularly mention it here but only Innovations in general I shall therefore follow him in his Method and shew That this Doctrine has in no ways occasioned those Damages and Corruptions in the Church which he would seem to lay to its charge and which 't is apparent those Papal Doctrines he mentions have He tells us there have ensued upon these Changes and Additions I. Damages II. Advantages The Damages which have ensued he says are 1. To our Lord's honour 2. To private Christians 3. To the Christian Church in general The Damages which he would have to proceed from these Innovations to our Lord's honour First Because they make him Capricious and humoursome by commanding things to be believed without reason Secondly Because they hinder the progress of the Gospel Now how far the Romish Corruptions deserve this censure I shall not examine but I am afraid the Authour will have a difficult task to prove this upon the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity or the Divinity of our blessed Saviour I have before shewn how unreasonable it is to expect we should be able to give an account of the true Reason of all God's positive Laws and how impudent it is for Men to refuse their Obedience to them because they do not understand those motives
Years old goes for Poland and there joyns himself to the Congregation of them that following Servet do pray to Christ as the Son of the Eternal God but not the Eternal Son Who as Socinus says in Poland and in the great Dukedom of Lithuania are called Arians and Ebionites And here he formed the remaining part of his Heresie which differs so much from that of the other Vnitarians before Socinus For whereas Servetus and his Followers were content only to destroy the Doctrine of the Trinity and to retain the other Points of Religion he was for innovating in all and in a strict sence for teaching another Gospel Thus he taught that the Principle and Foundation of Faith was in a Man of himself Soc. Tract de just That justified Persons are in a State of unsinning Perfection Syn. 2. de just Dial. de just p. 14. That Mortality was necessary to Man if he had not sinned Part. 3. de Serv. Chris c. viij That Adam had not the Promise of Eternal Life nor could he avoid his Fall Resp ad def Pucc de prim Hom. stat Lib. Suas quod regn Pol. c. p. 56. That Christ was a new Legislatour and gave Moral Laws which were not so before de Offic. Chr. p. 4. de Conv. Diff. V. N. Test p. 33. That Christ abrogated all the Judicial Precepts of the Law as well as the Ceremonial de Off Chr. p. 5. that notorious Offenders are not to be punished with Death ibid. That the Lord's Supper is not a Conveyance of Grace but only an Act of Commemoration Tract de Coen Dom. That Baptism is not necessary for Christians that it was a Rite only of John and not of Christ de Bapt. Aq. c. xvi That it is a thing indifferent whether Children be baptized or no or any other that it is not a sin if they be but it ought not to be enjoined ibid. cap. 17. That the Messias was not promised to all the Jews Frag. de justif jux fin nor were they at all obliged to believe that the Messias should come ibid. That Christ did not suffer and die for us to rescue us from Punishment but only to shew us an Example how we ought to suffer for Righteousness sake Rel. Chr. brev Inst p. 87 88. brev Disc de rat Sal. p. 15. That Christ was called our Saviour because he manifested the Terms of Salvation to us de Chr. Serv. c. 1 5. That he is called a Mediatour not because he reconciles God and us but because he was Embassadour from God to us to reveal his Will Rel. Chr. Inst p. 85. That Christ ascended up into Heaven before he entered upon his Prophetick Office to be informed of God's Will and therefore in Scripture when 't is said Christ came down from Heaven 't is to be meant of his Descent after this Ascension Rel. Chr. Inst p. 127. in Disp cum Erasm Joh. Christ was not God before his Glorification which was after the Ascension and then he was so only by Office and Immortality Anti-Wiek cap. 6. Rel. Christ Inst p. 25. That Christ was mere Man and the Holy Ghost only an Attribute Ibid. These and many more are the Heterodoxes of his Books which the Socinians do at this day maintain and others there are which are more covertly delivered in Socinus's Books though more expresly asserted by his Followers such as the denying an Eternity of Torments and the rising again with the same Bodies the Hints of which also they took from Socinus so that in him was in a manner wholly perfected the Heresie which does still go under his Name 'T is true the Anti-Adoration Faction who were the Followers of Franciscus Davidis and Symon Budnaeus did a long time stifly oppose him but in the Synod of Brest in the Confines of Transylvania he so cunningly managed the Matter that though he chiefly pretended a Dispute for the Adoration he brought the adverse Party to receive his Notions of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ of Justification and of the Corruption of Mens Nature which they had lately condemned Afterwards he drew over to his Opinion the famous Vnitarian Petrus Statorius a Man of a great Popular Eloquence who made Socinus's Doctrines go down more easily with the People by his Pulpit Harangues He himself too by a strange artifice brought over to his Heresy every day many of the better quality several the Courtiers and Nobility that happened to abide at Lubernick and several of the younger Clergy that were not well grounded in their Religion And none of the Vnitarians after a while objected against this new mode of Socinus but only Nemojevicius and Czechovicius who resisted him strenuously for a time and Nemojevicius after a while too assented to him and Czechovicius though he held out to the last seeing no body to abett him was forced to be still So that within four years time all the whole Church of the Vnitarians did subscribe to the Doctrines of Socinus which they had so lately almost universally Condemned Thus was this Heresy perfected after so many struglings among the Vnitarians themselves which is swallowed down so crudely and without consideration by many in our Ages that make pretence to the greatest Reason and Cautiousness Socinus lived several years after the general Reception of his Doctrines and died in the year 1604. The other Vnitarians that have been famous since Faustus Socinus have been but as the Schoolmen to Lumbard have commented only upon his Text and only more audaciously sometimes explained his notions The first Vnitarian of note after Socinus had formed his Heresy was Georgius Enjedinus an Hungarian Superintendant of the Socinian Churches in Transylvania and Moderator of the Gymnasium at Clausburg He was a follower of Socinus in most of his Doctrines only in the matter of Invocation which Socinus endeavours to disswade him from in a long Letter to him A. D. 1596. He wrote the celebrated Socinian piece upon the Texts of the old and new Testament upon which the Trinity is grounded though the other Tracts attributed to him are doubted Ostorodus was another Disciple of Socinus he was a Saxon by Birth the Son of a Lutheran Minister he was Master of a School for some time in Pomerania but being found to be heretical in his Principles he was deprived of that and so in the year 1585. he came into Poland where he was some time Minister of the Vnitarian Church of Gâ—dan His most famous piece is his Institutions which he wrote in Dutch Next was Johannes Volkelius born in the Province of Misnia in Saxony His chiefest piece is his five Books de verâ Religione or his Institutions of Socinianism which was excellently answered by Maresius Ernestus Sonerus a Norimberg Physician Professor of natural Philosophy and Medicine at Altorf he was the Master of Crellius He wrote the famous Heretical piece against the Eternity of Hell Torments Entituled Demonstratio