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
relapsed after Abjuration he is left in a worse condition The matter of Heresie was to be judged of by the Canonical Scripture Or 2. By what hath been determined by the four General Councils 3. By any General council according to express Scripture 4. By Parliament with Assent of the Convocation What Power your Lordship hath over the Head or Members of Exeter Colledge in case of Heresie I refer to their Statutes What Operation these Methods may effect I know not but there needs a speedy Application where the Gangreen gains so visibly and may be so mortal But why talk I thus to so great a Master in our Israel who hath a more perfect knowledge of all those things whereof I speak Your Lordship hath been a constant and eminent Assertor of the Faith established in the Church of England the Foundation whereof is that of the Ever Blessed Trinity on which all our Worship and all our Hopes are built but ungodly Men have in this too licentious Age endeavoured with all their Might and Subtilty to subvert this Foundation and that which hath caused this Address to your Lordship is a holy Indignation when I considered that there are more who appear in Print to destroy than to establish this Foundation which hath caused me though the weakest of many Thousands that my Zeal may provoke others that have more Knowledge and Abilities to solicite the Cause of the Eternal Son of God against whom that Outcry in the Gospel is revived This is the heir Come let us kill him and seize on his inheritance which they attempt to do by force of their own Merit and a Natural Righteousness making void the Righteousness which is of God by Faith in Christ who is Jehova The Lord our righteousness He that says of Faith in Christ as the eternal Son of God That it is impertinent to our Lord's design fruitless to the Contemplator's purpose and dangerous in respect of Blasphemy and because we have no sure grounds to go upon see p. 29. of the Naked Gospel in 2 Col. He that shall say that it is made the most mischievous Incendiary in the Christian World To the Reader p. 7. of the last Edition He that shall say of those who altogether deny our Saviour's Deity and dare not worship him at all That he dares not in Charity deny the name of Christians or hope of Salvation to such p. 55. of the last Edition gives great encouragement to the Infidelity of Jews and Turks and contradicts the Scripture which assures us That there is no other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be saved Acts 4.12 And the pretence of enlarging Charity is too short a Cloak to cover so much Nakedness it is not Charity to spare a Barrabbus and crucifie Christ it is as much against the Law of the Land and the Constitutions of the Church as against the Law of God to cherish such Vipers The Act 1 0 Guilel Mariae made for exempting their Majesties Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws provided that such as will have benefit by that Act shall subscribe a Profession of the Christian Belief in these words I A. B. profess Faith in God the Father and in Iesus Christ his Eternal Son and in the Holy Spirit one God blessed for evermore This is the Faith which I contend for and for which I beg your Lordship's Patronage who hath already so eminently and successfully appeared in its defence against that unlimited Toleration which would have destroyed it He that is now your Client is the Eternal Son of God to whom as the Author of our Salvation we were dedicated in our Baptism and have been taught by the undoubted Oracles of God That he is our Creator by whom all things were made that are made that God that redeemed his Church with his own proper Blood neither is there Salvation in any other Name the true God and Eternal Life to whose Almighty Protection and All-sufficient Grace which are able to save to the utmost all that come to God by Him I shall daily recommend your Lordship and all your Relations and Affairs as is in Duty bound Your Lordship 's most humble and obliged Servant THO. LONG THE PREFACE MAresius in the Preface to the Second Part of his Hydra Socin takes notice of the Printing in England Anno 1654. The Socinian Catechism of John Beedle Master of Arts containing all the Impieties and Blasphemies of Socinus to which he says was added a Catalogue of Socinian Books his Twelve Reasons against the Deity of the Holy Ghost and the Life of Faustus Socinus and that Learned Man thus complains of it O the deplorable Condition of England which having driven out their King now constrains the King of Kings to be banished and seems to have no greater value for that Liberty which was purchased by Christ's Blood than to obtain a License of Hearing Writing and Believing what they please If this were a Scandal to the English Nation in those lawless Times and gave so great an offence to foreign Divines How much more will the Offence and Scandal be when the Gospel shall be sent naked abroad by the hands of a Doctor of Divinity and Rector of a Colledge and one that writes himself a True Son of the Church of England especially considering that we have now a Protestant King and Queen whom God long preserve Defenders of the Ancient Catholick Faith which hath been so long professed in the Church It is greatly to be deplored that the Racovian Catechism is so commonly sold both in Latine and English as is Crellius also and Beedle's Catechism and his Arguments against the Deity of the Holy Ghost And lately a Swarm of Pamphlets like venomous Insects in all parts of the Land of Theists Anti-Trinitarians Unitarians Arians and Socinians darkning as much as they may the Light of the Gospel and poysoning the People Grotius in his Vindication of the States of Holland professeth that he knew not one in all the Assembly of the States that was not ready to denounce an Anathema as well to the old Doctrines of Samosatenus as to the new of Socinus against the Consubstantial and unconfused and undivided Trinity yet at that time the Heresie of Servetus had taken root and spread itself secretly among very many so that he himself to avoid suspicion of being a Patron to them thought fit to write his Book of the Satisfaction of Christ and we have this Expression in his Book De Pietate Ordinum Holland Seeing that Heresie is the Poyson of the Church and is quick in its Operation and there are certain Degrees of Heresie one being more hurtful than another there cannot be found any that is worse than the Heresie of Socinus at the mentioning whereof all good men do tremble We have reason to bless God that in such lioentious Times as we have seen in the former Age when a General Toleration was
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
the same God the Holy Spirit in whom all things subsist and this Deity spoken of in three Persons is one individed God And Chap. 11. When we are freed from this Body we shall be in Heaven with Christ God and Man whom we worshipped here on Earth Polycarp an Apostolical Author in his undoubted Epistle to the Philippians says Thus God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest and Son of God Build you up in the Faith and Truth c. Such an Invocation is proper only to God with whom the Son is joyned And again We are all in the sight of God and the Lord and must all stand before the Tribunal of Christ And in another Fragment of Polycarp's mentioned by Eusebius l. 4. c. 15. we have these words I bless thee in all things and glorifie thee by the Eternal High-Prist Jesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom to thee together with him in the Holy Spirit be glory now and for ever Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and a Martyr was the Disciple of Polycarp he begins his Epistle to the Smyrnians thus I glorifie Jesus Christ God who hath made you so wise And thus he salutes the Ephesians In the good will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God there is one Omnipotent God who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son who is his substantial Word and not by pronunciation but the begotten Essence of the Divine Power Ad Magnes 3. So in the 5th to the Philip. The Lord commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not in one that had three names only nor in three that were Incarnate but in three of the same Dignity for one of them was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but the Son only who was so not in opinion nor in Phantasie but indeed for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us How should not he be God who raised the Dead made the Lame to walk cleansed the Leapers and gave sight to the Blind And to the Philadelphians There is one God the Father unbegotten one Son the only begotten God the Word and Man one Paraclete the Spirit of Truth If any one say there is one God and confess Jesus Christ but conceives him to be a meer Man and not the only Begotten the Word and Wisdom of God but thinks him to consist only of a Body and a Soul this Man is a Serpent as Ebion was who taught error and deceit Epist 6. To those of Smyrna Epist 7. he calls Christ the God that bore flesh And Epist 8. to Polycarp He that was not passible as God suffered for us as he was Man In the 9th to the Antiochians He who acknowledgeth one only God to deny the Deity of Christ he is a Devil and Enemy of all Righteousness And in the Conclusion of that Epistle He who only is unbegotten preserve you both in Body and Soul by him who was born before Ages Epistle 11. ad Ephes The Word was made Flesh the Incorporeal in a Body the Impossible in a Body passible In his Epistle to the Romans Suffer me to be an Imitator of the Passion of Christ my God And in another Epistle to the Ephes There is one Physitian Carnal and Spiritual made and not made God in the Flesh the true Life in Death of God and of Mary Clemens Romanus useth the same distinction of our Saviour according to the Flesh and attributing to him the Splendor of the Magnificence of God preferring him above the Angels And his Expressions do so agree with those in Heb. 1. that Junius after St. Heirom and others have supposed him to be the Author of that Epistle he exhorts the Corinthians to Humility because saith he Our Lord Jesus Christ the Scepter of the Magnificence of God came not in Pride Consider says he what an Example is set before us if the Lord so humbled himself what should we do who live under the yoke of his grace There is a second Epistle of St. Clement mentioned by Eusebius l. 3. c. 38. And in the Apostolical Canons which speaks thus Brethren we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God nor ought we to think meanly of our Salvation for if we think too meanly of him we can hope but of little things from him St. Justin Martyr who being a Philosopher became a Christian in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew calleth Christ King and God he wrote an Exposition of the Faith and of the Trinity in the same Essence There is one God of all saith he who is known in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit for since the Father begot the Son of his own Nature and Essence and produced the Holy Spirit from the same therefore those which are of one and the same Essence are rightly esteemed to be of one and the same Dignity And he calls Christ God before all Ages And in his Apology to the Senate he saith That Son of God who alone is properly called his Son is the Word that was with him before the World was made as the Light is with the Sun Ireneus in his third Book against the Heresie of Valentinian c. c. 6. saith Neither the Lord nor the Holy Spirit would have absolutely named him God who was not God unless he had been the true God Thus the Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy foot-stool For the Father speaks it to the Son to whom he had given the Heathen for his Inheritance and put all things under his feet thus also it is said Thy throne O God is for ever c. Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee where both he that anointeth and he that is anointed are both called God by the Holy Spirit and speaking of the Personal Union c. 20. he says The merciful God in his love to Mankind did unite God and Man together and that it behoved the Mediator of God and Man to partake of the Nature of both This Author blames those that deny the Father of the Universe to have a Son who being the Word is the first Begotten and so is God and again in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he reproves them who deny Christ to be God being the Son of the Ineffable and Singular God and therefore calls him the Lord and God as being the Son of God And p. 33. he calls him The only Begotten of the Father of the Universe the Word and Power properly begotten by him and afterward made Man by the Virgin And he tells Triphon That the Son was begotten of his Father not by way of Abscission as if the Substance of the Father was divided but as one Fire is kindled by another without any diminution of the first which remains the same still viz. the Fire kindling and that which is kindled are of the same nature still Among many other I shall mention only
viz. 1. Papists 2. False Lutherans 3. Anabaptists 4. Disciplinarians 5. Weigelians 6. Remonstrants 7. Socinians The others being either sufficiently vanquisht or removed far from us the Socinians in our time do more secretly creep in and more dangerously undermine for these are not content wholly to obliterate Original Sin and the Satisfaction of our Saviour unless withal they wholly abolish the Eternity of the Son of the Living God so that he may be no longer called God man but a Man of God and not the Eternal Son of God but the Son of the Eternal God as dying Sermatus did blaspheme It were to be wished that such Prodigies of Opinions had never toucht our Shoars and it had been better that in their passage hither they had been sunk in the bottom of the Sea with a Mill-stone about their necks But what must be done when they daily rise up to the scandal of the Weak and no small disgrace to Religion in forreign Parts their wicked Attempts have been opposed by Bellarmine Scarga Weike and Smiglicius Jesuits by Francisco Stegmannus Prolaeus Meisner Martinius Hunnius Winkelman Gawerus Gerrardus Brochmand Himelius Thralieus among the Lutherans and by Calvinists Lubertus Lucier Gasmannus Jacobus a Porta Jo. Junius Maccovius Ravenspergerus Wendeline Zarnovicius and Covet with many others Calvin against Servetus Zanchius in thirteen Books De Tribus Elohim dedicated to Archbishop Grindal and the Earl of Bedford Zach. Ursme against the Cracovian Catechism Franciscus Junius against an Anonimus Arian and others these had diligently trodden down those Tares for a time which now spring up again with pestilent increase by the sowing of the wicked Enemy Our Country-men I confess were flower in weeding out these Tares whether it was as surprized at the return of those Blasphemies from Hell or whether they thought it more adviseable to let them dye in silence than curiously to examine them to feed Curiosity But moderate Counsels cannot withstand importunate Attempts their petulancy compels me to speak as St. Hilary to undertake Difficulties and as it were to speak things that ought to be kept secret especially seeing our Adversaries triumph at our silence boasting that they have over-come where no opposition is made Now there are three things wherein we place the main hopes of our Salvation I. The Knowledge of our Misery by Original Corruption II. The Knowledge of a Saviour by his redeeming Satisfaction III. A grateful Return of faithful and due Obedience But those who deny Original Sin and the Redemption of Christ are not likely to be truly Grateful Of Original Sin and the Satisfaction of Christ I have already treated against these subtile Enemies who neither acknowledge their Misery nor grant the Necessity of any Satisfaction I now stand up by the assistance of Christ and your leave for the Defence of the Deity of Christ especially seeing not long since Jo. Crellius by the united Strength and Arts of the whole Sect hath so boldly assaulted the chief Foundation of our Salvation therefore the Question to be now discust is Whether Christ be Eternal God Co-essential with the Father and Holy Spirit 3 S. This Question that we may handle with due Reverence and saving Advantage do Thou O Son of the Living God Illuminate me with the Rays of thy Eternal Deity and grant me a Mouth and Wisdom which they that Gainsay may not be able to resist Being thus prepared that I may not stop at the Threshold it must be observed That the Adversaries grant to the Father both Eternity and Personality to the Son a Personality but not Eternity but to the Holy Ghost an Eternity but not Personality And in this they differ from the ancient Arians that these acknowledge the Son of the Living God to be the first Born of the Creatures but the Socinians that he was born after his Mother For which reason Smiglerius doth not well imputing Arianism to them while with more labour than success he disputes against those New Monsters as he calls them for the Socinians attribute less to our Saviour than the Arians both affirm him to be a Creature but the Arians a more noble Creature as is manifest by the Disputation held at Cracow between Faustus Socinus and Erasmus a Minister of Transilvania and therefore they affect to be called the Reformers of Arius rather than his Disciples as it is in the Answers of Moscorovius and Smalsius against Smiglesius 2. It is to be observed That the Papists give no small advantage to the Cause which they oppose while they tenaciously hold in their School-Divinity that Christ merited for himself and that he was our Mediator according to his Humane Nature only for hence the Adversaries infer that that which he performed was but due and therefore it was to be to his own advantage only Whence therefore is that superabundant Merit by which he satisfied the Father for us And if his Humane Nature only were sufficient for the Work of our Redemption what need was there of his being God and Man I know what the Jesuits are wont to answer here but in my opinion we ought not rashly to grant any thing to such Sophisters as wrest all things to their own ends with great Art 3. This must not be omitted that in Scripture he is called God that is so by Nature or Donation and by gift either in regard of Sanctification or Mission or Commission or all these joyntly 4. Observe that a thing is counted Eternal as to Duration Indetermination Continuation and Signification to Duration because it wants beginning or end and so God alone is Eternal or because it wants an end only so Angels and Humane Souls which are called for distinction sake Eviternal as to Indetermination Aaron's Priesthood was called Eternal because no determinate end was appointed to it as to Continuation that is called Eternal that flows on without interruption as to Signification Circumcision is called Eternal not as to itself but its Anti-type 5. These words Essence Existence Subsistence ought acurately to be distinguished one from the other so that Essence may be fitly applied to the Nature Subsistence to Persons Existence to Notions and for clearer distinction Nature answers to the question what Person to the question who and Notion to the manner how But we have no dependance on these Terms of the Fathers and Schools but use them not as if our Faith needed them but because the Perversness of our Adversaries hath forced the Orthodox to express themselves after this manner to defeat the Devices of those Men who seek to hide themselves in the dark Labyrinths of Humane Reason whence we affirm that these ten words Essence Coessential Subsistence Substance Person Propriety Relation Notion Circumcission Trinity have been rightly though unwillingly devised by the Fathers retained by the School-men explicated by Bellarmine Zanchy c. to serve in this business as Prospective to discover the Subtilties of the Adversaries which otherwise might escape their sight not
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
one like the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days and received from him Glory and Power and a Kingdom The second from Rev. 5.7 Where the Lamb whom all confess to be Christ received a Book from him that sate on the Throne Where the Giver and the Receiver are really distinguished Ans If the Son of Man in the first Vision doth denote Christ as we acknowledge then he did exist before he was born of the Virgin which confutes the Adversaries In the second the Lamb had the same Honour given him from the twenty four Elders and from all the Creatures as he that sate on the Throne which argueth an Equality of Excellency so that all these imply a distinction of Persons not a diversity of Nature 4ly They urge those places wherein Christ is said to receive all things from the Father as Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Joh. 5.26 The Father hath given to the Son to have Life in himself whence he is said to be the Image Brightness and Character only of his Father's Person Heb. 1.3 Now it is say they necessary that he who receiveth be inferior to him that giveth and the Image or Character to its Proto-type Ans John 5.2 resolves all these Objections That God gave him authority of exercising Judgment as he is the Son of Man not of God for so he is God of God Light of Light the essential Image and Character of the Person of his Father and inferior only in Order not in Nature or Time But these Men will not distinguish with St. John between Christ's Humane and his Divine Nature nor with St. Paul between the Form of God and the Form of a Servant but this is their constant practice to confound the Essence and the Person 5ly They object that Christ is numbred among the Creatures being called the first born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and the beginning of the Creation Revel 3.14 He that shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and be subject to him therefore he cannot be of the same Nature and Excellency To this it is answered before That he is called the first begotten not the first created for he was begotten from Eternity before all Creatures which were made by him as it there followeth he was not created in Time as the Creatures were And if he had been so the first born he had been before the Angels and the Virgin Mary which the Socinians do deny against the Arians 2. The Apocalipt calls him the beginning of the Creatures of God as the Active Principle from whom all the Creatures had their beginning not the Passive as if he were the first of those things that were created 3. The delivering of the Kingdom into the hands of the Father and his subjection thereupon is not the subjection of the Nature but of the Economy after the finishing of the Mediatorial Office or if I may so speak the resignation or laying down of that Office that he might resume that Glory forever which he affirms he had with his Father before the World was John 17.5 6ly They oppose this External Generation and Glory of the Son by reasons for upon supposition of such Generation Crellius saith it would follow 1. That the Son would be the Son of himself 2. There would be infinite Sons 3. That the Son would be from Eternity and not from Eternity 4. That the Son was yet to be generated and to be generated to Eternity which are things irrational and not to be admitted Ans Reason doth not comprehend things Infinite though Faith may apprehend them therefore it is unreasonable to measure by the Rule of Reason those things which are peculiar to Faith only and depend on Revelation only and it is sufficiently revealed to us in the Scripture that there is One God and that in this Unity there are three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost This we believe because it is written and do not doubt though it appear not by Humane reasoning how this can be however we deny that from the Arguings of the Adversaries or from Reason rightly informed it would follow First That according to our Opinion the Son should be the Son of himself because one Essence doth not beget another but one Person begets another as the Father the Son who of him becomes another Person not another thing 2. It is but his Dream of infinite Sons seeing that the only begotten is of infinite Perfection which is not divisible or multiplicable 3. Nor is Eternity repugnant to Generation for Moscorovius against Smigletius defends the probability of it the Materia Prima to be eternal and uncreate and so still to remain which yet the Leaders of this Opinion will not grant to be and not to be from Eternity thus supposing the Sun to be eternal its splendor which all would grant to have been to be and to endure with it must be eternal 4. Therefore when the Nicene Fathers do express this eternal Generation of the Son by the Emanation of Light from Light they do not mean that which is fleeting from that which is fixed but do manifest as much as they could the Equality and Co-eternity of Persons in their Order affirming the Son to be begotten Genitum non generandum 7. Lastly They load the Incarnation with so many Absurdities as if from thence it would follow 1. That the Father and Holy Spirit were as much incarnate as the Son 2. That the Person of the Son did wholly cease 3. That things in themselves different did unite Or 4. or at least that as Nestorius says two Persons did yet subsist in the Son But this Heap of Trifles hath been long since confuted by those of our Party Hierome Zanchy whose words are worthy to be repeated treating of this Controversy saith I affirm that I never read any thing in the Writings of Lelius Socinus Ochinus Servetus and the rest of that Bran whose Dirt is flung about by the Modern Socinians that hath any thing of that Accuracy which many Books of the Ancient Hereticks had for they are all either the old Song repeated an hundred times or new Impertinencies condemned before they were conceived Thus that Strenuous Doctor a Person of Primitive Discipline and of great Learning and Experience in these Controversies To whom we may add the Acurate Bisterfield The Sum of all is this We do not say that the Essence was Incarnate but the second Person in the Trinity 2ly That he did not by this cease to be a Person because he assumed the Humane Nature not a Person 3ly Not that by this Assumption the Divine Nature were any way perfected but that he thereby perfected the Humane Whence 4ly different Natures as the Soul and Body in Man did unite in one Person by an ineffable but possible Union not making two Persons as Nestorius dreamed because they have but one Subsistence which the Humane Nature that was assumed brought not with
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
do in this Chapter they were such as our Saviour had exasperated against himself calling them Thieves and Robbers that came to no other end but to kill and destroy whereas he came to give them Eternal Life which St. Joh. 20. says was the end of his Writing the Gospel That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name This our Saviour proves stiling himself the good Shepherd that came to lay down his Life for his Sheep i. e. all that should hear his Voice and that they might not doubt of his power to do it he tells them v. 18. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again And this he was to do by Commission or Commandment from his Father who loved him v. 17. As being of one will with his Father in this v. 15. As the Father knoweth me even so know I my Father Again he proves his Divine Power by his Works which were such as the Jews confest the Devil himself could not do and to them he appeals v. 37. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not Now the same Divine Works in specie argues the same Divine Power and therefore our Saviour tells them I and my Father are one that is as the Jews themselves understood him One in Essence as well as in Operation the Jews on these Doctrines and Arguments of our Saviour take up Stones to stone him as guilty of Blasphemy who being but a Man made himself God for v. 36. as Christ himself saith it was because he said I am the Son of God so that it seems to be the Son of God and to be God were equivalent terms and so understood by the Jews for by either of these they concluded that he made himself equal with God To silence the Jews Accusation he urgeth a Scripture which they own'd being written in their Law Psal 82.6 Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods and the Argument is thus formed and applied à majore ad minus If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God This his being the Son of God he proves by another Argument from the Works which he did and they acknowledged that none but God could do therefore he argues thus He that doth the Works of God and such as you grant none but God can do he is God and ye ought to believe that he is in God and God in him v. 38. That is that they are of the same Nature and Essence and in this sence the Jews still understood him for they still sought to take him and stone him So that our Saviour still maintained his Doctrine That he was the Son of God in that sense which the Jews counted Blasphemy our Saviour doth not draw them off from their sense of his being the Son of God by Nature to a sense of his being so only by Unction and Sanctification i. e. to a Socinian instead of an Orthodox But as the Gentleman observes our Saviour answered them in profound Wisdom with regard to the Circumstances of Place Time and Persons all which we shall now consider and manifest our Saviour's Wisdom in respect of all these 1. As to the Persons they were resolved Enemies to the Life and Doctrine of our Saviour and such as would not believe him though he told them never so plainly as our Saviour says when they ask'd him the like ensnaring Question v. 25. If you be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus answered them I told you and ye believe me not because you are not of my sheep Their present Honour and Interest was a barr to their belief How can ye believe that seek the honour that cometh of men and not that which cometh of God They understood not that plainer Parable in v. 6. of the true and false Shepherds And our Saviour tells his Disciples Luke 8. v. 10. To you it is given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God but to others in parables that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand These were those obstinate Jews in whom was fulfilled the Prophecy of Isai 6.9 as St. Matthew relates ch 13.13 for this cause probably our Saviour in his Wisdom thought it not fit to cast Pearls before Swine he knew they would not believe though he had asserted his Deity never so expresly 2ly As to the time it was the Wisdom of our Saviour not to expose himself to the Rage of the Jews the Time designed for his Death and the Manner of it viz. by Crucifixion not by Stoning being not yet come and he had many Doctrines to instruct his Disciples more perfectly in them some they could not yet bear and some they knew but imperfectly even that of the Resurrection and these things required his Presence with them for a longer time and therefore he withdrew himself from them Unless this Gentleman will make himself wiser than his Maker he must acknowledge that when our Saviour answered those Jews so as to silence their Accusation of Blasphemy and stop their Rage who sought to stone him though he did not by that Argument which he used assert his Deity which yet he still maintained that he used his profound Wisdom in the Argument which he urged But what if from this Scripture from which this Gentleman would prove that Christ is called the Son of God by vertue of his Mission only it shall appear that he is the Son of God by Nature and Essence may we not then retort that he only casts a Mist on the eyes of the Simple and hath a Spirit of Contradiction if it shall appear that the first Question was Whether our Saviour was the Christ as it is clear v. 24. i. e. the Messiah If 2dly It appears that the Messiah was the Natural Son of God then this Scripture from whence he makes the Objection will be an utter Confutation of it Now this was the sence which the Jews had viz. that Christ or the Messiah was the Son of God and they accused him of Blasphemy because he whom they thought to be but a meer Man made himself the Messias that is God for they would by no means grant him to be the Messiah That the Messiah was to be the Son of God R. Sclemo proves from the second Psalm of which he says our Fathers expounded this Psalm concerning the Messiah of whom it is said Kiss the Son lest he be angry and thou art my Son which explains what is meant by the word Son viz. that it could not agree with any other Interpretation as that of Be ye instructed or worship purely for the Psalmist expounds himself for it being said v. 7. Thou art my Son viz. he whom the Gentiles conspired against it follows according
to the interpretation of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kiss the Son least he be angry and our Saviour applying this expression to himself makes it beyond doubt So they apply Psal 89.26 He shall call me thou art my Father c. which also is applied to the Messias and that God was his Father and that the Psalmist speaks of Christ St. Peter Acts 4.27 puts beyond doubt and that he was that Corner-stone which these Builders refused though there is not Salvation in any other verses 11 12 So that in the sense of the Jews our Saviour making himself the Messias and the Son of God he made himself God and did blaspheme And now having proved that this Author cannot by all his Art wrest this Scripture to his Socinian sence I hope he will be so civil as to grant us the same advantage as he challenged for himself if Christ being the Son of God only by Mission had been the genuine sence of St. John in this Chapter namely that as he would have all other Scriptures that speak of Christ as of God and the Son of God ought to be accommodated and understood in his Socinian sence of being so only by Mission so it being clear that our Saviour calling himself the Son of God made himself the Natural and Eternal Son of God as the Jews understand and counted him a Blasphemer for it he ought to grant that those other places which speak of our Saviour as God and the Son of God ought to be understood of his Eternal and Natural Generation And thus it is evident that there are some Men who can swallow Contradictions and Absurdities more gross than this Gentleman imputes to the Orthodox for to give Divine Worship to one whom we acknowledge to be a meer Man is a boldfac'd contradiction to the First Commandment and to our Saviour's Command of worshipping the Lord God and serving him only whereas if we acknowledge One God only and believe that this Supreme God subsists in Three Persons this cannot be accounted a Contradiction it is something above our apprehensions through our ignorance of the Nature and Operations of the Supreme Deity which cannot be fully known unto us it is above our Reason but not contrary to it because it is agreeable to Divine Revelation as the Harmony of the Old and New Testament and the Reason and Judgment of the most and best Divines in all Ages have asserted If a sober and learned Heathen should diligently read the Gospel of St. John and find the words God and Son of God so often ascribed to him and such Divine Works done by him and consider that St. John assisted by the Spirit of God did write his Gospel on purpose to vindicate the Deity of our Saviour which was denied by many Hereticks he could not rationally conclude otherwise than that he was the Natural and Essential Son of God Bisterfield against Crellius gives this sence of the controverted place Do ye not read that I the Messias said ye are Gods c. If they that were such as they are described Psalm 82. ignorant v. 2 c. Unjust Oppressors and ignorant Judges were honoured with the Title of Gods who yet must die like other Men and the Scripture which cannot lye owns them for such how can ye say that I who am ordained to be the Judge of the whole Earth and stand in the midst of the Congregations of such Gods as an Almighty and Omniscient Judge to break in pieces as with a Rod of Iron all such unrighteous Magistrates as oppose themselves against me who am sanctified and appointed to be the Redeemer and Saviour of the World that I blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God But I insist not on this though it may have more of Argument in it than the Socinians can confute it being said in the close of that Psalm 82.8 Arise O God judge thou the earth for thou shalt take all the heathen for thy inheritance which is very applicable to our Saviour The Doctor seems to grant That Christ was before he was sanctified and sent into the World Crellius grants That to sanctifie in Scripture signifies to separate one and choose him for some singular Office and to qualifie him by special Gifts for the discharge of that Office but this cannot be affirmed says he of him that is the most high God such Sanctification and Mission belongs to Christ only in respect of his humane Nature To this Bisterfield answers That he must be a Stranger to the Scripture that is ignorant who it was and to what end Christ was sent into the World both which will prove his Godhead not barely from his Mission but his Mission to that end for which he was pre-ordained which none could effect but he that was God the Work was too great for any or all the Angels of God much more for any one Man he therefore that was sent to such an end viz. the Redemption of the World and Satisfaction to the Divine Justice must be more excellent than Men or Angels or the Mission had been in vain therefore as St. Peter says We were redeemed by the precious blood of the Son of God and by nothing else as a meritorious cause Against this Crellius objects from John 17.18 As thou O Father hast sent me into the World even so I have sent them my Disciples into the World And 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World but neither of these were in Heaven before they were sent into the World therefore neither was Christ Answ The word As doth not signifie a likeness in all respects for then false Prophets as he supposeth or else he urgeth the place to no purpose were sent to the same end as Christ and his Apostles it signifies only some particular likeness in the Mission for Christ was sent by another and for another end than the Apostles were they were not sent to redeem the World by suffering in the stead and for the sins of Men but as Christ was sent into the World to perform this singular Office so were the Apostles sent and qualified to do their Office i. e. to publish those glad Tydings Lastly Whereas Crellius says That this Sanctification cannot pertain to the Divine but Humane Nature of Christ only The Answer is That this Sanctification being the Pre-ordination of Christ to that great Office of a Mediator between God and Man for the Sanctification and Salvation of his People he is said to be sanctified i. e. as Crellius says to be set apart and ordained by his Father for that Office or to sanctify himself by undertaking to accomplish it and to that end by his Divine he sanctified his Humane Nature the Sanctification of the Divine Nature was relative not absolute or internal as if any new Vertue or Divinity were added to it but the Sanctification of the Humane Nature was the Union of it to the Divine Nature in respect
of both which Nature 〈…〉 t was qualified for that Great End and Office of a Mediator and â—oth the Sanctification and Mission of our Saviour were but a Manifestation of his being qualified both as God and Man for that great End of our Redemption If our Saviour's Sanctification and Mission into the World were a sufficient reason to convince the Jews that he was not a Blasphemer in saying that he was the Son of God why may it not be a sufficient Argument to prove that the Socinians blaspheme Christ who say he was not the Son of God until his Conception and Ascention into Heaven Might not the Jews argue then as the Socinians now do Why tell you us of your Sanctification and Mission as if that made you the Son of God if we could see you ascend into the Heavens we might believe that you came down from Heaven but till then we must believe our eyes rather than your words we see you are a Man and know your Mother and Brethren and therefore you blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God The truth is that Christ's Sanctification or Unction his Mission c. were but as St. Paul speaks of his Resurrection a Declaration only of what he was before Again the Question was not in what respect he was the Son of God but whether he was the Son of God in any such manner as might excuse him by their Law from being a Blasphemer and herein also he shews his Divine Wisdom he argues from his Works and from their Law which they knew to convince them of what they were ignorant of if he should have proved that he was the Son of God because God was his Father by eternal Generation that had been to prove ignotum per ignotius and the Jews would have equally rejected both and adjudged him guilty of Blasphemy in the highest degree as not believing that God had a Son begotten of him from Eternity or that Christ was this Son but they having heard of a Messias whom they expected about that time to come into the World the best means to convince them that he who did the Works of God which no Man could do except God were with him was that Messias and if that he was first sanctified and then sent into the World in a more eminent manner and for higher End than any of those to whom the Word of God came in former times to commissionate them as Magistrates for the Government of Mankind then he did not blaspheme in saying I am the Christ or I am the Son of God So that if our Saviour's Argument were more opposite and convincing than those of the Socinians we have gained this Fortress from them and on their surrender of this their other little Sconces will fall into our hands for whatever is spoken of our Saviour as God or the Son of God they refer to his Designation and Mission into the World i. e. to his Humane Nature as where it is said He received power from the Father that he did the works of his Father that he was one with the Father by consent of his will And they will allow no such Phrases any way to imply his Deity because those expressions of Gods giving and Christ's receiving God's sending and his being sent imply a Superiority and Inferiority in the Persons and that the one received somewhat which he had not before But the Fathers and late Divines do easily answer all these thus To the Objection of Receiving 't is said what Christ received of his Father was not given as he was God but Man St. Ambrose de Fide l. 3. n. 22. Christ prayeth as the Son of Man and obtains as the Son of God he possesseth as the Son of God what he prays for as the Son of Man so he was anointed and grew in Grace c. not as God but Man Perfecit non Deus sed caro So the Father is greater than I and the Father giveth life to the Son and he received the Spirit without measure All such Phrases belonging to Christ as Man as Christ says of himself All things are delivered to me of the Father as he was then incarnate The next most considerable Objection is from 1 Cor. 15.24 c. How Christ can be said to be that true God it being there said he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father and then the Son himself shall be subject to him Answ This doth not imply an Annulling or Abdication of his own Dominion as God no more than when God the Father is said to deliver all things to the Son and Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth the Father did exclude himself by that Gift 2ly This Kingdom is peculiarly his Church and St. Aug. de Trinitate l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. thus explains that place Tradere regnum est credentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei To present his Church pure and without spot free from all impurity of Flesh and Spirit from all Sins and all Enemies which shall be trodden under their feet as Seneca's Phrase is Reddam te tibi meliorem that whereas God was obeyed by them formerly but in part now God shall be all in all And when it is said Christ shall reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet it doth not imply that he shall reign no longer but that he shall reign so long maugre all the Powers and Polity of the Gates of Hell which shall not prevail against him for the word until doth not exclude the future time as Matth. 28.28 But how shall the Son himself then be subject shall he become a subject of whose kingdom it was promised there should be no end and that he should reign forever Luke 1.33 Object Christ while on Earth and now in Heaven is subject to his Father What other Subjection can be conceived Then when he shall deliver up the Kingdom Answ This by the Ancients was understood of the mystical Body of Christ over which he is Head and King and when the whole Church is subject then Christ as the Head may be said to be subject so Athan. Contr. Apolon n. 22. and St. Ambrose de Fide l. 5. c. 6. n. 24. Christ shall be subject in us who are not yet fully made subject And St. Aug. Q. 93. 69. n. 87. it is spoken of Christ and his Members Christus universus est caput cum Membris This Subjection is spoken in the future Tense Then shall the Son be subject Now Gregory Nazian asks the question Annon nunc est subjectus est Orat. 36. Christ as Man never disobeyed or rebelled but we that are Members of his Mistical Body do sin and disobey God and Christ and till our mortal Body shall put on Immortality we shall not be wholly brought into subjection but when Christ shall have brought down all Authority and Power subdued all his Enemies purified all his Members and presents them to his Father
Conclusion he deserves to be shaken into the Fire again for the impotent Creature doth not only hiss at the mistaken Author of Nolumus leges Angliae mutari but on the whole Convocation for their stiffness to their Constitutions whose very Authors says he in the Conclusion were they now living and true to their own reason must be willing to abolish them This is the Doctor 's enlarged Charity to the deceased Compilers of our Liturgy that they would have done as he desireth i. e. removing the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the Litany Doxology and I know not what Constitutions besides the Institutions of our Saviour to wit the two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist the ends whereof this Doctor with the Socinians doth utterly destroy and retains them only as Rites and Badges of an outward Profession of a Naked Gospel But let us enquire wherein this enlarged Charity of the Doctor 's doth consist Charity is either the love of God or of our Neighbours Now first our love to God ought to bear proportion with the love he hath bestowed on us of which the Apostle Joh. 3.16 saith God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Ver. 17. That the world by him might be saved The World then without Christ was in a lost and perishing condition God had for Sin shut them up under a sentence of Condemnation and it was his infinite Goodness and Wisdom to contrive the Means of our Salvation such as might reconcile us to himself to which end he thought this the fittest to send his only begotten Son into the World to dye for our sins the just for the unjust making him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him of this love the Apostle with admiration says Behold what manner of love the Father hath shewn to us c. If God had only sent a Prophet a Man of God to make a fuller Declaration of his Will this had not been a reason of so great Admiration but when he sent his only begotten Son that was one with the Father and laid help on him that was mighty able to save us to the utmost being God and Man this deserves the Sic So and the Ecce Behold and our admiration What manner of Love had he been the Son of God only by a miraculous Conception which freed him from Original Corruption had he only lived a Holy Life and left us a good Example had he only died to confirm the truth of his Doctrine as the Socinians say the Birth of St. John Baptist his austere Life and Death might come near to all this The Gift therefore here spoken of must be such as became the Infinite Goodness of God such as might reconcile his Love to us with his Love to his Justice such as might be sufficient to satisfie for the Sins of all that should believe in his Son and obey the Commands of God by him Which now is the greater Obligation of our Love to God to believe as I have said the Socinians do or as the Catholicks That God sent his only Begotten i. e. his Eternal Son the Wonderful the Mighty GOD to satisfie for our Sins to instruct us in all things that concern the Glory of God and our own Salvation to hear our Prayers and relieve all our Necessities to sanctifie our Souls and make us Partakers of the Divine Nature by the operation of the Spirit of Grace This is Love and this the Gift that God bestowed on us through his Infinite Love and in some proportion we ought so to love God as he first loved us And to think of and esteem of this Gift less than what the Scripture hath valued it at is not rightly to apprehend his Love or our infinite Obligations to make suitable Returns 2. As to our Love to Christ if he were only a Man that taught us the Will of God so did the Apostles if he died only to confirm his Doctrine and give us an Example of Constancy and Patience so have many Martyrs done But Rom. 5.7 8. God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us and had he only died for us and not been able to rise again and to take up his life as well as to lay it down had he not destroyed all the Enemies of our Salvation and ascended to Heaven having all Power committed to him we might argue as the Apostle doth If Christ be not risen and if he be not the Eternal Son of God to make Intercession for us and to send the Holy Ghost to sanctifie us then is our Preaching vain and our Faith is vain and we are yet in our Sins but now we may sing ouâ— Epinicion over all our Enemies The stâ—ng of Death is sin and the strength of Sin is the Law but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.56 57. Then for his Love to the Holy Spirit of God it is too well known that the Socinians deny his Deity and say That the Holy Spirit is nothing separate from the Word so that we need not to Baptize in his Name to praise him in our Doxology or to pray to him Come Holy Ghost Eternal God c. Our natural Reason and Faith in God makes the assistance of any other Spirit needless and why then should we wait on the Spirit of God any longer or believe that God will give any other Spirit to them that ask it Is there no other Spirit but that which works in the Children of Disobedience Are not some Souls an Habitation of God through the Spirit Read we not of the Spirit of the Son Gal. 4.6 that helps our Infirmities Do we not read of the divers Gifts of the Spirit and that it is Christ's Vice-Roy as I may say to preside over his Church to the World's end And is there no Love no Obedience due to his Spirit but we must joyn with the Socinians to pluck the Holy Ghost from his Throne 2. As for his enlarged Charity to his Brethren what love doth he manifest to the Church of God that hath been founded on this Rock of the Confession of St. Peter Thou art Christ the Son of the living God when by his Principles they are proclaimed to be Idolaters as worshipping a Creature besides the Creator and giving him and the Holy Spirit which by his Maxims are not God by nature the same Divine Honour which is due to God only And as to the Church of England particularly it hath been declared how contrary his Opinions are to her avowed Doctrines more especially his Charity to the Convocation of the Clergy at Westminster whom he condemns to be too stiff to their Constitutions when he says All the World expected a Condescention from them is not very large It was no very good Opinion that he
conceived of them when he thought to present his Naked Gospel to them as if they would have faln in love with its Nakedness And the truth is they saw so many shameful and scandalous Pamphlets demanding Alterations in our Constitutions and Doctrines and a Toleration of Latitudinarian Principles that though they were willing to make some moderate Concessions yet when they perceived there would be no end of demanding such Alterations as they could not consent to they thought it fit to maintain their ground and not give way to unreasonable Propoposals such as these which the Doctor now makes for a Toleration of the Socinian Heresie As for his Charity to the Oxford Convocations the Reflections made on them in his Vindication which hath been already considered do discover that his Charity begins and ends at home and is confined only to Men of his own Perswasion I think I do not conjecture amiss if I say that he hath the same enlarged Charity for us as Smalcius had who concludes his Book De Divinitate Christi thus I doubt not to affirm confidently That none of those who believe Jesus Christ to be God of himself and to have Divine Power can by any means have certain hope of Eternal Life by vertue of his Opinion concerning Christ. And such is the Charity of this Author to all that profess Christ to be their Saviour and say Thou art the King of Gory O Christ Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father If this were the Doctor 's design in writing his Naked Gospel I shall conform to the Apostle who enjoyns That if an Angel from Heaven should teach what is so opposite to the Gospel which the Church in all Ages hath received and believed he deserves an Anathema Thus at last we are like to see a thorough Reformation of the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Saviour even such as we saw of the once Flourishing Church of England under the Government of the most Religious King and Martyr Charles the First It was reformed first by a Presbyterian Parliament which took away her Bishops and Liturgy then by an Independent Army that devoured her Lands and Revenues then by an Inspired General which brought in a Toleration of all sorts of Enthusiasts and after sundry Revolutions by a Naked Rump which if God alone had not prevented it would have left us all in Confusion Thus the Gospel which spread so far and wide under the Ministry of our Saviour and his Apostles was first reformed by a Juncture of Gnosticks Nicolaitans and Ebionites who mixt the Jewish Opinions and Observations with the pure Ordinances of the Gospel and would equal Moses with Christ then by the Samosatenians and Arians who robbed him of that which he thought no Robbery to assume to himself i. e. to be equal with God Then by Mahomet that great Impostor who preferred himself above our Saviour drawing all Sects into a Body under himself And now after various Revolutions by the Naked Gospel which proclaims our Saviour a meer Man as Moses and other Messengers of God were to whom therefore some already do and the rest of the Socinians ought by their Principles to deny any Religious Worship which by their own Confession is due to God only and to no Creature whatsoever And who can foresee with what Viperous Monsters the Naked Gospel is now pregnant which begin to eat through the Bowels of that Church wherein they have been nourished and proclaim Liberty to all sort of Heresies and Blasphemies against the Son of God and the Spirit of Grace as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10.28 Trampling under foot the Son of God and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace When one Pamphlet proclaims the Holy Ghost Dethron'd another The Triple God Buried and the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Popish Antichristian Diabolical Doctrine these dreadful Alarms from the Bottomless Pit should awaken all good Christians unanimously to Invoke the Ever Blessed Trinity to arise and plead its own Cause against such as daily Blaspheme them The loud Blasphemies of these Philistines against not only the Israel of God but the God of Israel hath called me forth to bid Defiance to this Goliah though armed only with a Stone and a Sling not doubting but there are many Worthies in our Israel who will appear and do wonderful things All that I intended was to discover where this Adversary lay hid under the usual Disguise of the Old Serpent that mostly appears as an Angel of Light that he may with less suspicion effect his Works of Darkness and I doubt not but the Church of Christ hath still such good Angels ministring to her before whom such Angels of Satan shall flee and fall as Lightning The Rabbies say That on the Stone wherewith David slew Goliah the Characters of the Messiah were engraven I shall sling a Stone or two in the Name of the Messiah our Blessed Saviour against those Philistines that have blasphemed that Name and commit the success of them to the All-disposing Providence of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost The first Argument that I shall urge is the Harmony of the Old and New Testament which speaks of the Deity of the Messias and apply it to our Saviour The second is drawn from the Doctrine and Faith of such eminent Fathers and Martyrs as suffered for that Faith The third from those Judgments of God executed on those who in their several Ages openly opposed that Faith which may serve as Examples to deter others from tempting Christ lest they be destroyed as those were of whom the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 10.9 From which Premises we may rightly infer an Equality of Nature and Power in the Father and the Son and conclude the same Honour and Worship due to both When Arcadius an Arian Emperor assumed his Son to a Partnership in the Empire the good Bishop St. Ambrose as I remember addressing himself to Arcadius humbled himself with all due Obeysance but took no notice of his Son Honorius at which the Emperor manifesting his displeasure the good Bishop took occasion to tell him That if he were offended at the disrespect shewn to his Son he might consider that the God of Heaven might be more justly displeased with them that neglected to honour his Son which I leave you to apply Some Socinians deny our Saviour any Worship and others grant him only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an inferior Honor as the Papists do their Saints not that Divine Worship which properly belongs to the Deity It is generally agreed by the Socinians to make the Holy Sripture Judge of this great Controversy concerning the Godhead of our Saviour but they would have Reason to be Judge of the sence of the Scripture and to this we would appeal if they would not seek little Evasions from Particles and Criticisms of their own inventions against the plain Letter of the Scripture for Smaltsius one of their best Champions says Ludum jocum è
from the Father by nature if he be a Creature though honoured with the name of God as others have been this Precept forbids us to worship him as much as to worship any other Creature That which they farther object That this Precept belongs to the Old Testament and was given before Christ had a being is absurd for if there be any Moral Precepts of perpetual Obligation this is one besides when Christ used this Precept he was then in being and by a Voice from Heaven was proclaimed to be the Son of God So that the Socinians must wholly deny Divine Worship to Christ or else are guilty of Idolatry in worshipping a Creature The like Argument we have Isa 42.8 where God declares That he will not give his glory to another i. e. the Praise Adoration and Worship which is due to him alone may not be given to any other Angels or Men. The Argument is this God will not give his Glory or Divine Worship to another but he hath given it to Christ therefore Christ is not another To this they say That God intended by this Declaration to exclude Graven Images which are immediately expressed Neither my praise to graven Images he doth not say He will not give it to any who have their dependance on him and are subordinate to him As if the word another did exclude only Graven Images or as if all other things had not their dependance on him which yet are all excluded And it is observable that in this Chapter mention is made of Christ so v. 6. I the Lord have called thee in righteousness and will hold thy hand and keep thee and give thee for a covenant to the people a light to the Gentiles this is spoken of Christ Luke 2.32 To open the blind Eyes to bring out the Prisoners from the Prison and them that sit in Darkness out of the Prison-house see Luke 4.18 So after the Text Behold I declare new things viz. by Christ the word And v. 13. The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man he shall prevail against his enemies All this the Gospel shews was performed by Christ now this Glory and Worship being given to Christ it follows that he also is the Jehovah the God of Israel Isa 45.23 compared with Rom. 14.10 Look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the earth for I am God and there is none else Unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear this is applied to Christ Rom. 14.11 We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ for it is written As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God Which plainly infers that Christ is that God Psal 102.25 c. compared with Heb. 1. The Apostle distinguisheth between holy Men that spake and the Son of God the Psalmist says Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth which the Apostle applys to Christ therefore he is that God And to that Son it is that it is said Thou Lord hast laid the foundations of the earth c. I have seen an ancient Saxon Manuscript now in Print which read in the fourth Commandment Jesus Christ made the Heavens and the Earth Psal 97.7 compared with Heb. 1.6 The Psalmist's words are Worship him all ye God or Angels so Elobim signifies The Argument is He whom all the Angels are commanded to Worship in this Psalm is the God of Israel Christ is he whom the Angels are there commanded to worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is in the Psalm which speaketh of the Lord of the whole Earth so the God of Israel is often stiled Jos 3.11 Zach. 4.14 Mich. 4.13 The second Proposition is evident in Hebr. 1. where this Worship is applyed to Christ Let all the Angels of God worship him A Question here is raised Whether the words of the Psalmist and the Author to the Hebrews speak of the same Person or of another If of the same then is that Person Jehovah the Supreme God if of another then it is a false Exposition when that which is spoken of one Person in the Psalm by the Holy Spirit is applyed to another by Men. He therefore whom the Angels are to worship is the only begotten Son of God and Jehovah the Lord of the whole Earth for to this purpose is the Psalmist quoted to prove that Christ is to be worshipped by the very Angels which could not be to the purpose if he were not the same that is spoken of in that Psalm viz. The most high God Psal 68.18 compared with Eph 4.8 Thou hast ascended on high thou hast led captivity captive and received gifts for men Which the Psalmist speaks of God and the Apostle applys to Christ therefore he is God Psal 24.1 compared with 1 Cor. 10.26 He whose is the earth and the fulness thereof is the great Jehovah but of Christ it is said His is the earth and the fulness thereof therefore he is the Lord Jehovah The name Jehovah is in the Text of the Psalmist which proves the first Proposition and in the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. this is applyed to Christ who is particularly denoted by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the New Testament and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 8.6 and Chap. 12.5 Eph. 4.5 And the Arians grant that he was the Creator of all things and therefore the Earth and the Fulness thereof belongs to him he therefore is the Jehovah or Supreme God Isa 35.4 compared with Matth. 11.5 The Prophet says Your God shall come and save you then shall the eyes of the blind be opened This Prophesy was fulfilled by our Saviour Mat. 11.5 whence the Argument is thus formed That God who at his coming was to open the eyes of the Blind c. was the God of Israel Christ is that God who at his coming did open the eyes c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel Note That by your God is meant the God promised to Israel the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of him was the question Art thou he that should come v. 3. Isa 8.13 compared with Rom. 9.30 and 1 Pet. 2.3 The words are Sanctify the Lord God of Hosts himself c. The Argument is thus He that should be a Stone of Stumbling and a Rock of Offence is the Supreme God but Christ is that Rock and Stone c. Isa 4.3.5.10 compared with Matth. 3.3.5.14 and 1 Pet. 1.24 The words are The voice of one crying in the wilderness This Cryer was John Baptist Matth. 3.3 and he pointed to that Lord whose ways he was to prepare by preaching the Doctrine of Repentance and that Lord was Christ to whom St. John Baptist bore witness This is the Lamb of God In Isa 4. v. 5. The glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it This was fulfilled Joh. 1.14 The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory
observe that such a Practice was ancient and in some times reasonable Antonius Pagi a Franciscan in his Critical Notes upon Baronius ad Seculum secundum p. 21 c. gives us several Quotations to this purpose St. Augustine on John Tract 96. says That the Sacraments of the Faithful are not exposed to the Catechumens and the Catechumens do not know what the Faithful do receive Chrysostom on Matth. Hom. 27. Those only that are initiated do know what the Faithful receive Origine in his first Book against Celsus shews the Reason as well as the Custom of concealing some Christian Rites he tells him That the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Crucifixion Resurrection and coming to Judgment were known to all but the Jews derided them and that was the cause that other Mysteries were concealed particularly that of the Holy Trinity And concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity St. Chrysostome Hom. 4. on 1 Cor. professeth that he durst not speak of the Form of Baptism and of the Creed in which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is explained I dare not saith he because of those that are not yet initiated who make the Exposition more difficult who compel us either not to speak openly or to discover Secrets to them yet I will speak of them as far as I am permitted under Figures St. Cyril of Jer. Catech. 6. speaking of the Mysteries contained in the Creed says The Church layeth open these Mysteries and Sacraments to those that are initiated but it is not their Custom to expose them to the Gentiles we do not declare to them the Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor do we openly preach them to the Catechumens but in such a secret manner as they that profess the things may understand it and they who understand it not may not be prejudiced There is something to this purpose in Soz. l. 1. c. 20. I thought saith he to have set forth a Copy of the Creed as necessary for the Demonstration of our Faith but when some of my Friends pious Men and well skilled in the knowledge of these things perswaded me that I should keep in silence such things as are fit for Priests only to speak of and for such as are already initiated to hear I approved of their Counsel because it is very probable that some who are not yet initiated may read these Books wherefore I have hid as much as I could those Secrets which ought to be concealed acquainting the Reader with such Decrees of the Council which they ought not to be wholly ignorant of And indeed we find that the Heathen when they heard of the secret Doctrines of the Trinity Sacraments and Prayers of the Primitive Christians did make sport of them and ridicul'd them on their Theatres and publick Plays whereof we have an instance in Lucian's Philopatris or a Dialogue wherein he represents a Christian instructing an Ethnick by whom he ought to swear Thou shalt swear says he by the God that rules on high the great immortal and immutable God by the Son of the Father and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father one in three and three in one conceive this to be Jupiter your God To which the Ethnick answers I cannot apprehend what you say is one three and three one Thus also he scoffs at our Lord's Prayer when the Heathen bids his Catechumen go and say the Prayer beginning Father and end with a Song of many Names i. e. the Doxology Socinus says in his Defence against Eutropius That he never read any thing more strong for the Opinion of the Trinity than this of Lucian he wrote in the time of Trajan St. Hierom speaking of the Translation of the Septuagint says That the Translators did not reveal to Ptolomy the Incarnation of the Son of God lest the Heathen should think they had two Gods Proeme on Gen. Casaubone on Baronius Exerat 16. and Monsieur Morney mention the same Discipline which may be a great reason why so few of those ancient Fathers mentioned the Trinity and those who did spake in such dark Terms as our Author himself hath observed p. 56. c. 2. that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did hide from the Catechumens the Rites of Sacraments So that considering this Discipline which restrained many Ancients from publishing the whole Truth and the diligence of the several Hereticks to alter and expunge what was written against them it is a wonderful Providence that so many Authentick Testimones are preserved The following Collections are mostly from Mr. Bull 's Book where the Reader may see them asserted The Epistle of Barnabas written about the time of the Apostles call Christ the Son of God Lord of the whole World by whom and for whom all things were made i. e. by him as the Efficient and for him as the Final Cause which agreeth with the Apostle Rom. 11.36 and cannot be said of any but God without Blasphemy s 1. c. 2. n. 2. and in c. 5. of that Epistle he says That he who foreknew all things foretold his People that he would take away the Heart of Stone and give them a Heart of Flesh because he was to appear or be made manifest in the Flesh and to dwell in us for our Hearts says he are the holy Temple of the Lord. Hermas another Apostolical Writer in his Book called The Pastor affirms That the Son of God was present with his Father before all Creatures and calls him his Counsellor and that the name of the Son of God is great and infinite that the whole World is sustained by him and thus distinguisheth between the Son of God and the Creatures Similitud 9. And l. 3. Simil. 5. he says The Son of God is not put in a servile condition but in great power for to be put in the form of a Servant and to be a Creature are of one signification This agrees with that distinction of the Apostle Phil. 2. c. 6. between the Form of a Servant and the Form of God Of this Author Petavius says That he was never suspected to have any false Opinion of the Trinity Martialis a Bishop and Martyr and who is said to have been one of the seventy Disciples in his Epistle to the Burdegalenses c. 2. says of our Saviour That as a Man born of the Virgin he could die but as the Son of God he was from the beginning and as God he could not be held under the power of Death And Chap. 4. He being the true God and true Man shall judge all Nations Chap. 10. That the Spirit of God most glorious by Divine Equality did proceed from the Word not begotten not made nor created but the Word was begotten therefore says he do ye not conceive any thing different in the Deity of the Trinity because to you there is one and the same God the Father that created all things and one and the same Lord by whom all things were made his Son Jesus Christ and one and
in prejudice of the Text but for the help of reasoning from the Text. First It is agreed that there is a Trinity and in this Trinity there is a Priority of Origination acknowledged by all So Smalsius I deny not that there is Father Son and Holy Ghost and that this may be called a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers say of the Son that he is God of God Light of Light true God of true God which expressions imply at least a Prerogative of Order though not of Nature in which respect Eusebius Caesar scarce deserves to be accused of Arianism by the Papists for affirming the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father against the Arians only he is observed to hesitate at their Co-equality where if he only mean the Co-equality of Order not of Nature he may pass for a good Catholick Secondly It is agreed that Christ is truly and properly called the Son of the Living God seeing he took his Original not after Humane manner from mortal Seed but was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb by the Holy Spirit over-shaddowing her and the Power of the most High coming upon her and is therefore called the Son of God Luke 1.35 Thirdly It is agreed that Christ is expresly called God in respect of his Mission office and Dominion and therefore is exalted above all Creatures to be adored with Divine Worship together with the Father and to be invoked as the Searcher of Hearts and Omnipotent as Smalcius confesseth in his Book of the Divinity of Christ and Socinus in his Defence against Christianus Franken The Question then may be reduced to these Terms Whether Christ the Messias the Redeemer and Saviour of us all be God not by Donation only from the Father by Pre-eminence of Authority or Dominion but by Nature not as to Indetermination Continuation or Signification Eviternal but Eternal without beginning or end not of an inferior or another but of the same Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost not of alike but the same Nature as the Ancients speak and as our second Article expresseth it Consubstantial here the Papists Lutherans the Greek Asian and African Church affirm as we do The Transilvanians some Polonians and some Apostate Hollanders as appears by their Writings which are in too many hands do deny The principal Arguments for Confirmation of our part are these Here we shall not heap up all the Arguments but choose such as time will permit to handle 1. From the Text Thou art Christ the Son of the living God whence I argue The Son is of the same Nature with the Father so Man begets Man c. but Christ is the Son of God the first begotten not the first created the only begotten his proper Son therefore he is of the same Essence with the Father and consequently as is exprest in the first Article of the same Power and Eternity Crellius endeavours to avoid the edge of this Answer by this sorry Evasion That the Son of God signifies no more than the Anointed of God so that he is called Son not by Nature but Unction and therefore the addition of The living God is omitted in St. Mark and Luke Ans This is to find fault with the Text rather than the Inference from it as if St. Matthew did intend to deceive and not inform us and were to be corrected by St. Mark and St. Luke as Crellius would have it 2. 'T is no contradiction to say less than had been said by another now in St. John we have the same Confession as herein Matthew Joh. 6.69 3. By Unction Kings and Priests are made but Sons by Generation and therefore the Word Son expresseth his Person as the word Christ his Office Christ and the Son of God signifies the same Person but not in the same respect Socinus objects That the same manner of expression is Isa 1.10 where the Israelites are called the Sons of the Living God not that they were Sons co-essential with God but that they were Sons of the Living God as opposed to Idols whence it appears this Epithet of God viz. Living shews of what sort of God Christ is Son not what sort of Son he is To which we answer That by the Adversary's confession this Epithet Living declares what sort of God the Father is therefore I infer that it shews also what sort of Son the Son is as the Maxim is Qualis pater talis filius i. e. In living Beings he that begets and he that is begotten is of the same sort 2. In Hosea Sons of the Living God are opposed to such as were not the People of God not as if they were natural Sons but adopted by calling not by being begotten as it is express They shall be called c. Rom. 9.26 So that here is no relation to Idols who neither beget nor are begotten 3. The Text shews the Son of the Living God is opposed to the Son of a Mortal Man as being of a more excellent kind for all saw him to be the Son of Man some said the Baptist others that Elias or Jeremiah were revived But this inspired Confession of St. Peter signifies something more sublime Q. P. we profess that thou art not meerly the Son of mortal Man as the Baptist and others of Humane Seed but that thou art the Son of that Eternal God which alway liveth As therefore he was of the same Nature with his Mother as the Son of Man so it is necessary that he be of the same Nature with the Father as the Son of the Living God Here Ostorodius objects That begetting of a Son implys the Mortality of the Parent for to what purpose are Sons begotten but to continue the succession of those that are mortal Ans This is very acute as if there were no difference between natural and temporal Generations and this which is eternal and ineffable Sons are adopted to supply succession and did the Ancient of days adopt the Son of Man for succession's sake See to what our Rationalists reduce the matter Socinus more distinctly explains the Mystery It is not to be denied that the Power of God did convey into or create in the Virgin 's womb some substance out of which conjoyn'd with that which was of the Virgin 's substance Christ became true Man who on that account had not only the Virgin for his Mother but God also for his Father considered as Man Ans Where doth the Scripture speak of this Socinian Mass Yes say they The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the most High over-shaddow thee True but doth it follow hence that he â—â—eated any such Substance as they feign this is Logick above our apprehension The Text speaks of a Vertue and Power not of any Substance now a Son is product from the Substance of the Father and in likeness of Nature whence he is called Son of the Virgin not of the Holy Ghost who communicated a power of Conception to her
not with Angels And let Socinus shew where ever Moses in the Old Testament is called Christ or where the name of Christ put absolutely is attributed in the New Testament to any other than to our Saviour 3ly To tempt any one before he was is said gratis but thus they fall into temptation who attempt to deprive the Son of the Living God of his Deity and Eternity The second Instance is out of the Psalms where that which is proposed of the glorious going of Jehovah Psal 68.19 is expounded of Christ ascending on high and leading Captivity Captive Ephes 4.8 2ly That which is ascribed to Jehovah Worship him all ye Angels Psal 97.7 is affirmed of Christ Heb. 1.6 Let all the Angels of God worship him 3ly That which is affirmed of the Creator of Heaven and Earth Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the Works of thy hands Psal 102.26 is attributed to Christ in the self same words Heb. 1.10 The Adversaries are diligent to decline this either by denying that these things in the Old Testament are to be understood of the most high God or to be repeated in the New Testament concerning Christ or by affirming that these things may be accommodated to Christ but not as God of the same Nature with the Father but because he did represent the Person of the most high God Ans Not only the words but the scope of those Texts do exclude these Evasions That if in any manner our Saviour represented the Person of his Father in the Old Testament it was then necessarily before he was born of the Virgin which wholly destroys the Cause of our Adversaries 3ly The same is proved out of the Prophets for that Majesty of the most High which is so magnificently described Isa 6.1 is applied unto Christ by Name These things spake Esay when he saw his glory and spake of him John 12.41 Many others of this sort may be produced Socinus objects That these things are either spoken figuratively or are adapted to Christ only by way of accommodation but conclude nothing of his Eternal Deity Ans Then those Apostles and Evangelists which urge and accommodate them to that purpose do deal with us sophistically or unskilfully and are to be corrected and explained by Posterity viz. the Socinians The fourth Argument is drawn from certain Attributes ascribed to Christ which clearly evince that he is of the same Nature and Excellency with the Father of very many I shall only name three viz. Eternity in respect of Time Omnipresence in respect of Place and Adoration in respect of Sovereign Majesty and Dominion Now his Eternity is asserted from these places The Lord hath possest me in the beginning of his ways from the beginning before he made any thing Prov. 8.22 The Syriack read from Eternity the Arabick I have begot thee before the Morning-star Ps 110. 2ly His coming forth is from the days of eternity To which 3ly our Saviour confirms the same of himself Joh. 8.58 Before Abraham was I am Here Socinus objects That in the first place Wisdom signifies not the Son of God but the Wisdom of God nor doth this expression of the beginning of his ways signifie Eternity but Antiquity But this Interpretation is excluded by the following Verse I was set up from everlasting from the beginning before the earth was The Apostle confirms our Argument We preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God 1 Cor. 1.4 To our second Argument he cavils That thence it would follow that Christ from Everlasting came forth from Bethleam This is a shift for the Text of the Prophet suggests a double going forth a temporal concerning which 't is said in the Future Tense He will go forth the fulfilling of which Prediction the Evangelists observes Mat. 2.6 And an eternal of which it is said in the Preterperfect Tense His going forth was from eternity To the third he trifles that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely to be but to become and hence the Vulgar reads Before he became Abraham i. e. a Father of Nations I am i. e. I was sent to pluck down the partition wall to bring the Gentiles into the Church Ans The Question was not concerning the calling of the Gentiles but whether Christ preceded Abraham so as he might see him our Saviour affirms that he was viz. by the glory which he had with the Father before the World began Joh. 17.5 which the Jews endeavoured to refute with Stones as now the Socinians by Subterfuges Again we assert his Omniprefence from Joh. 3.13 None hath ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of Man which is in heaven where he was before John 6.62 Now this he spake to Nicodemus while he was on Earth and yet he declared that he was then in Heaven therefore at the same time he was in Heaven and on Earth The Innovators do here betake themselves to an unheard of Comment viz. That as Moses was taken up into the Mount and St. Paul into the third Heavens that they might be instructed of God speaking to them as it were face to face so it was more convenient that the Son should be assumed into Heaven and instructed by the Father Which they think was done during those forty Days which intervened between his Baptism and his Conflict with Satan this though they do not urge as an Article of Faith yet Smalcius saith We are fully perswaded of it and greatly rejoyce that this Mistery is revealed to us by God in the Scripture But this Mistery nor the Revelation of it doth please us for what need was there that he should be taken up into Heaven for a more perfect Information on whom the Holy Spirit did descend and in whom the Godhead dwelt Bodily in whom the Father was always and he in the Father 2ly He was amongst the wild Beasts in the Wilderness for the space of those forty Days the Devil tempting him and the Angels ministering unto him as St. Mark expresly saith Was the Desart Heaven and were Satan and the Beasts admitted into it Nor doth this Fiction satisfie the Argument seeing we thus urge the Text That the Son of Man whom Nicodemus saw and spake to saith expresly of himself that he was then in Heaven which could not be as he was a Man therefore it must be as he was God Omnipresent The more the Adversaries do strive in this Point the more they intangle themselves Lastly We infer the Deity of Christ from the Adoration which was performed unto him for he was adored as God by Stephen the Proto-Martyr calling on him Acts 7.59 Lord Jesus receive my spirit Francis David answereth That that Jesus here is of the Genitive Case and the sence is this O thou Lord who art the Father of Jesus making the Father to be the Object of Invocation not the Son Christianus Franken presseth the same Argument