deny And though this Position were rash enough yet what he adds is much worse viz. That the Athanasian may be numbered among the Roman Doctrines and to be leveled with the Arian equally unworthy of not only our Faith but our Study Now the Athanasian Doctrine is not only agreeable to the Nicene but they are both retained in the Doctrine of the Church of England and how can he affirm himself a Son of the Church of England who bids such an open Defiance to the Doctrine of that Church The Nicene Council grounded their Decrees on the Scripture as they had been understood by the Primitive and Apostolical Fathers before there was either Imperial or Papal Power in the Christian Church and it is very strange if this be not a more firm Foundation than his corrupt Reason when it is contrary both to Scripture Antiquity and Councils and the sence of the Catholick Church in all Ages as much as to the Faith of the Church of England In this Chapter the Doctor tells us of the Council of Ariminum which was many Years after that of Nice and was the greatest for number that ever was but one of the worst for the major part were Arians the Doctor confessing p. 38. col 2. That the Arians had all the Eastern Churches except that of Hierusalem that in this Council the Latine Church were circumvented by the Greeks who when it was proposed by the Greeks Whether they would worship Christ or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they cried they believed not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Christ Before I answer this Objection I shall add another which the Doctor urgeth p. 14. c. 1. speaking of the Consubstantiality he says It was a Mystery to those very Councils which determined it and as it appears says he by those contrary Determinations of several Councils and by the wavering of the same Council for that of Sermium framed two or three one whereof they would have reneg'd and laboured to recal its Copies Answ This Variety of Councils was occasioned partly by the influence of Arian Emperors under whom at that time St. Hierome observed the whole World became Arians but more especially by subtilty of those Greeks of whom he speaks who pleaded the Cause of the Arians in that Council of Ariminum against the Latine Church for those sort of Greeks were possest of the Eastern Churches as our Doctor observes But the Latine Church adhered to the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds and as Ignorant as the Doctor accounts them they discovered and baffled the Sophistry of his subtile Greeks even in that Declaration of theirs That they believed not in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Christ i. e. not in such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some of those subtile Greeks would have imposed on them contrary to the Opinion they had of Christ Now this piece of Sophistry will thus appear Athanasius speaking of some Hereticks who used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Paulus Samos used it in a sence that might confirm his Error and destroy the true Notion of the Word The Council of Nice agreed the meaning of it to be That the Son had a proper Personality which made him the second Person in the Trinity but was of the Substance with the Father And Socrates l. 1. c. 8. says They held the Son to be of the Father but not as a part of his Substance which was the Error of Paulus Samos Sabellius c. declaring the Divine Essence to be undivided contrary to the Opinion of those Hereticks that held the Divine Substance to be divided between the Father and the Son And in this sence they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nice accounted Heretical this was known to the Latine Church and when they proposed that word in a sence opposite to the Nicene Faith they did as they had just cause reject it and answered that subtile Question with a plain renouncing of the Error of those Hereticks that thought to impose their sence on them We will not worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Christ In this sence it was that the Fathers in that Council renounced the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustathius had this distinction from Marcellus his Master whom St. Hilary and St. Basil call an Heretick See Socrates l. 1. c. 23. and Sozomon l. 2. c. 11. I shall here once for all give my Reader a short Account of the Controversy between St. Athanasius and Arius Alexander Bishop of Alexandria having heard of the Blasphemy of Arius a Priest under his Jurisdiction called a Synod of his Province to enquire into his Opinions and censure him Arius appeared and maintained That there was a time when Christ was not that he was Deus Factus made a God and so a Creature For these and other Heretical Opinions he was Excommunicated together with some others whom he had drawn to his Opinion and by their means the People were also divided denying to hold Communion with each other The Emperor being informed how far the Dissention spread and what Tumults had been already occasioned by the Controversy between the Catholicks and Arians though not fully informed of the truth of the Question made it his business to apply a seasonable Remedy to so great an Evil and first he sent Letters by Hosius Bishop of Corduba both to Alexander and Arius enjoyning them to Peace and Brotherly Communion I find saith the Emperor that the rise of the Controversy between you is this That when you Alexander required of your Presbyters what they thought of a certain place in the Law or rather of a needless Question and you Arius did imprudently reply what you neither ought to think nor being thought you ought to have supprest by silence the Discord between you caused a breach in your Communion whereby the People also were divided from the Unity of the Church wherefore I Exhort that each of you pardoning each other do embrace what I your Fellow-Servant most justly require for it was neither fit to move such a Question at first nor being moved to return such an Answer to it for such Questions which no necessity of the Law doth prescribe ought to be kept in our own Breasts and not to be unadvisedly committed to the Ears of the Vulgar lest we for the infirmity of our Nature not being able to explain what is proposed and the People through their dulness being not able to apprehend it they necessarily fall into Blasphemy or Schism for the Contention is not about any great Command of the Law nor is there any new Opinion started concerning the Worship of God but you both retain one and the same Opinion so it seems the Emperour was informed and therefore may well live in the same Communion as the various Sect of Philosophers do Let us duly consider how unequal it is that by your Contention about light and vain words the People that lived as Brethren should
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
of the Church of England where this Christian Religion is established Every good Protestant will readily answer these Queries And notwithstanding the Protestation of the Doctor in the close of his Epistle to the Reader That he is not conscious of having contradicted any of the Church's Articles in any one word The impartial Reader will perceive by what hath been discovered to be the design of the Naked Gospel in the foregoing Exercitations that it was mainly intended against the most important of those Articles I only recommend to the Doctor 's serious Consideration that as it is an unaccountable Phrensie for any that abhors Popery and Slavery to grow weary of the present Government and to desire the return of the late King by a French Power so it is the highest degree of impiety for a Person that hath been long educated and instructed in the Doctrine of the Church of England which teacheth to adore the blessed Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords not only to dethrone but debase him as a meer Creature and esteem no otherwise of him than as a King de Facto made and advanced by Imperial and Papal Edicts and Decrees not so ancient as Constantine but by Theodosius and Damasus bishop of Rome See p. 38. of the Edition in two Colums From what Point the Wind blew that hath caused the Doctor to steer a course contrary to what he intended at his first setting out is not so intelligible as to guess at what Harbor he intends to lay up he doth seemingly at least recant many of those Heretical Opinions which he had asserted in the first Edition of the Naked Gospel but so inconsistently that the New Piece which he hath patcht on upon the Old Garment will make the Rent worse But this is no other artifice than what hath been practised by the Arians and Socinians heretofore whose feigned Confessions and Recantations they on occasion recanted again and their later Deeds have been worse than the former Chap. 7. of the Holy Trinity The D.'s first care is to give us a right notion of the usual words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Person which he would translate beingness and propriety The word Substance he says p. 45. is so much applied to matter that some with great confidence deride it as a contradiction to say that a Substance can be immaterial of this Opinion were Vorstius and Hobs and how much the Doctor differs from them that which follows may evidence The more we attend to our own Senses says the Doctor or Aristotle's Predicaments the more strongly are our Minds possest that Substance must be material c. As to the word Person p. 46. he says Could we be as sensible that the word Person in its metaphysical height is no less improperly applied to the second Distinction in the Trinity than the word Begotten is in its Physical baseness and could we cast away that improper word and use the warier word Subsistence and Propriety we should more easily satisfie our selves and others Wherefore taking the word Substance for Subsistence and Person for Propriety he proceeds to give us a new Notion of the Trinity such as agrees with the Doctrine of Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius That the one high God is both Father Son and Holy Ghost His Positions are these 1. That God is a Being absolutely perfect 2. That Mind is the most perfect Being The same with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Original being derived from none but Author of all and therefore properly stiled the Father As Mind is the most perfect Being so the most perfect Being must be a perfect Mind but an unthinking Mind cannot be a perfect one God therefore was never unthinking and since thought is the first and proper Issue of a thinking Mind therefore may it most properly be stiled The first begotten Son and co-eternal with the Father because the Father was never before him p. 48. A thought is no less than a word conceived and a word is no more than a thought brought forth The Mind or its Wisdom cannot be absolutely perfect if they do not or cannot perform or want Power to act there must therefore be a third Person which the Scripture calls the Holy Ghost which is constantly described by Power and Action This is the Doctor 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he thinks he hath obliged all Mankind displayed the Mystery of the Trinity which hath been the trouble of all Ages and in which he hath not advanced one Proposition without warrant from the Scripture the Church of England the Fathers of the Church and the best Champions for that Doctrine and that which is his greatest hope is that the Unitarians will not dissent from one of them if taken in that sence which their terms freely offer p. 51. And I fear it is to serve their Hypothesis that the Doctor hath conceived and published this Notion It is not a little surprising that the Doctrine which was so lately ridicul'd under the term Mystery and which must remain so still a point of Push-pin Divinity The Athanasian Doctrine fit to be numbred with the Roman and would be fairly dealt with if left on the same level with the Arian equally unworthy not onely of our Faith but our Study see The Naked Gospel printed in two Columns p. 38. A long and mischievous Controversie and Behold now the ground on which one of our Fundamental Articles is built should now deserve another Ecce to behold p. 49. of the Doctor 's Edition how the very Light of Nature demonstrates St. John's Mystery There are three that bear witness in heaven c. And p. 53. How our Platonizing Doctor confutes the Atheists who accuse this Mystery as contrary to Reason which he now saith reason in Plato discovereth the Doctor having adapted a Natural Trinity for his Natural Religion But the Doctor is conscious of another Error viz. That he hath Sabellionized with Sabellius for mentioning St. Augustine's Opinion concerning the Trinity p. 50. says that it favors more of Sabellianism than his as above explained As the Doctor 's Opinion is by him explained it may serve as the Center wherein all the Opinions of the Ancient and Modern Hereticks may meet and acquiesce Vm. Lirinensis asks Quis ante sceleratum Sabellium Unitatis Trinitatem consundere Ausus est Whoever so confounded the Doctrine of the Trinity as the impious Sabellius Of whom Sandius says Sabelliani tribuendo patri essentiam filio scientiam sancto vitam videntur negasse subsistentiam filii sancti Sandius p. 120. Consonant to this our Doctor says The Mind is Beingness or the Father the Son is Wisdom the Holy Ghost is Power and Activity Again Sandius p. 111. Sabellius taught the one God in Essence and Substance to be the Father Son and Holy Ghost which three he called three Vertues or Proprieties three Names three Persons and for proof of this Opinion
produced these Scriptures He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also I and the Father are one And I in the Father and the Father in me Which Scripture were commonly used by the Noetians and Samosatenians Patris voluit esse substantiam solidam propriam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filium autem sanctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as our Doctor renders it Wisdom and Power to act Sandius goes on Sabellius compared the Father to the Hyposi asis of the Sun the Son to the Light and Rays the Holy Ghost to its Calefaction he so taught the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one that they were but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence his Followers as Sandius observes were called Patropassians as teaching God the Father by the assumption of Humane Nature to be called the Son and in that Nature the Father suffered because one and the same God was Father Son and Holy Ghost without distinction of Persons which as Lirinensis said was to confound the Trinity and as our Doctor doth make it to consist of one Substance and two Proprieties or Energies viz. to Think and to Act. The Doctor says that Thought is the first begotten Son of God that Thought is a Word brought forth and is the same in substance with the Mind whence it issueth but if it issueth from the Mind it becomes separate and cannot be any longer the same with the Mind And this Opinion is the same which Philastrius notes to be the Opinion of Paulus of Samosata That the Word was not the substantial Son of God co-eternal with the Father but the Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enunciative or prolative Word only an aery Sound not a living and sempeternal Person co-equal with the Father An Opinion somewhat like that of Mr. Hobbs concerning the Trinity which he makes God the Father speaking by Moses in the Old Testament and by Christ in the New Sandius observes the like of Cosmas who taught with Sabellius That the Word of God was naked and without any subsistence which his Followers called Verbum vocale enunciativum and sometime internal or mental p. 117. And he tells us that though the Modern Socinians detest the Error of Sabellius yet they are ignorantly guilty of it p. 120. Near of kin are the Doctor 's new Notions of the second Person in the Holy Trinity to the old Heresies so often condemned making the second Person a Thought the third a Power and he might have named as many more of the Divine Propriety viz. Holiness Love Justice c. as would have made a Denary of Persons The Doctor describes the third Person in the Trinity by Power and Action and this description he says is constantly used in the Holy Scripture Though we find the Attribute of Holy more frequently annexed to that of the Spirit as Eph. 4.30 Grieve not the holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and the Holy Ghost in almost an hundred places We find also that of Power attributed to the second Person more eminently than to the third as 1 Cor. 1.24 Christ is called the power of God and the wisdom of God Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Hebr. 1.3 He upholds all things by the word of his power Matth. 9.6 The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins And he that made and upholds and shall judge all Men may most properly be called the power of God How vain then is that boast of the Doctor 's p. 49. That this his way of tracing the Holy Trinity agrees to a syllable with the words of the Holy Scripture and the Church of England and is more plain to be understood and proved than that magisterial way vulgarly used wherein Reason is not permitted to speak p. 50. This is Platonis fastum Majore fastu to oppose his private Reason against both the Reason and Authority of that Church whereof he professeth himself a Son and impose on it an old Heresie in a new Dress Bellar. in Cronol says That Fr. David held the Son and Holy Spirit to be Virtutes Dei non distinctas a Patre persona relatione vel essentiae Chap. 8. p. 53. Treateth of the Incarnation The Doctor entituled Chap. 7. of the first Edition thus Of Belief with meer respect to the Person of Christ Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured first because Impertinent And he endeavours to prove it impertinent to our Lord's design viz. That we should enquire after the Dignity of his Person that he was the Eternal Son of God this he calls Boys play and Push-pin and quotes the Judgment of Constantine for it When the Game as he calls it was first set on foot Then p. 29. of the first Edition It was no more necessary to understand the Dignity of the Person of Christ than for a Traveller to understand the Features of the Sun Now p. 55. of the new Edition If we regard the Dignity of the Person it is plainly more honourable to believe him God the Creator than a Creature Deified Then p. 30. he says That part of Mankind which our Lord most favoureth are most unable to pay him such a belief Now p. 54. If we consider the thing it self it appears much more credible that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the Nature of Man than that a Man should be made God endued with a new Omniscience to hear and Omnipotence to grant the Prayers of all Supplicants Then it was fruitless to the Enquirer's satisfaction p. 31. Now p. 55. If we consider the fruits our thankfulness must be greater our love more inflamed our obedience more quickned our hatred to sin more sharpned and all the good ends of Faith much more promoted Then it was dangerous lest we should blaspheme p. 36. and because we have no firm ground to go upon Now p. 55. Upon all accounts were the Scriptures so doubtful as to leave us to our choice we ought rather to carry our biass toward our Lord 's eternal Divinity than against it In this and what other Disputes may arise for I have not leisure to enquire what other Additions or Alterations are made I doubt not but the Rector of Exeter-Colledge will sufficiently answer the private Opinions of Dr. A. B. In the mean time I am very glad to hear and heartily congratulate the Doctor for what he hath declared p. 53. That though there be in the Trinity a great Mystery yet now nothing is more plain than that of St. John The word became flesh and dwelt among us or those words of St. Paul Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the flesh And that these and several other words of Scripture so plainly speak our Lord's Divinity that whoever otherwise interprets them will no less rob the words of their meaning than Christ of his honour And what is there in this wonderful Mystery that Reason cannot comprehend p. 54. And
their Authority I have but briefly toucht them As to my Method having first considered his Preface in the next place I have considered his Apology 3. I have made some general Reflections on the Book and lastly I have discovered what Socinian Doctrines are covertly delivered in each Chapter for I find his Oracles like those of old to carry a doubtful or double Sence to be as a Reserve and Refuge that being driven from the one he might flye to the other and indeed it is more difficult to discover and draw him forth from those Ambushes wherein he lies in wait to deceive than to baffle his greatest Strength in a plain and open Field the first is my chief endeavour though I have not on occasion declined the other what I have attempted was not in confidence of my own Abilities having never been exercised in this spiny Controversie and being now by Age Miles emeritus but only to excite and provoke others to contend for the common Salvation in the Faith once delivered to the Saints and whatever the success be I hope I shall obtain the Pardon of all good Men seeing I have according to my power cast in my Mite into the Church's Treasury AN ANSWER To a Late TREATISE ENTITULED The Naked Gospel THE Author of the Naked Gospel calls himself a true Son of the Church of England now the Doctrine of the Church of England is declared in her Liturgy her Articles and Homilies in her Liturgy she hath inserted the Three Creeds viz. that called the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian these two last our Author would have to be restrained to the Letter of the former because that only is used in the Offices for Administration of Baptism and Visitation of the Sick but if he be a true Son of the Church he hath or should ex animo have given his Assent and Consent to all the Doctrines avowed by the Church However it is well that the Doctor seems to approve of the Apostles Creed because I find the Socinians deny the Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost being it is not expresly affirmed in that Creed yet certainly they had not been made Objects of our Faith if they were not of the Godhead This Creed is but a larger Profession of our Christian Faith which we made at our Baptism where we dedicate ourselves to the Service of that one God who is Father Son and Holy Ghost The Right Reverend Bishop of Chester hath sufficiently proved the Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost in his learned Exposition of that Creed Nor have we ever heard of any of the Fathers that have interpreted it otherwise than as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds have done yet I have been credibly informed that a Doctor who stiles himself of the Church of England gravely declared That this Creed also might be reformed But in the Church of England we find the reiterated Acknowledgment of the Blessed Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost so in the Doxology in the Form used in Baptism and in the Litany O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God c And in that very ancient Hymn after the Communion it is said of our Saviour Thou only art Holy thou only art the Lord thou only O Christ with the Holy Ghost art most high in the Glory of God the Father In the Te Deum Thou art the King of Glory O Christ thou art the Everlasting Son of the Father In the first Article concerning the Trinity the Church of England says That in the Unity of the Divine Nature there are three Persons of the same Essence Power and Eternity Father Son and Holy Ghost In the Homely for Whitsunday she says The Holy Ghost is a Spiritual and Divine Substance the third Person in the Deity distinct from the Father and the Son Which thing may most easily be proved by most plain Testimonies of God's Holy Word Canon 〈◊〉 1640. And in the Canons it is forbidden to read Socinian Books And in the former Book of Canons we are forbid to teach any thing but what is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and what the ancient Fathers and Bishops have collected out of them It was therefore a Protestatio contra factum to stile himself a true Son c. and under that Title to publish to the World what is so opposite to her Doctrine May not the Church complain of such Sons in the words of the Prophet Isaiah c. 1. I have nourished and brought up children and they have rebelled against me But God be thanked the Church of England doth not want more dutiful Sons such as on all occasions are ready and able to vindicate her Doctrines and assert her Discipline That famous University whereof the Author was a Member seasonably manifested her Detestation of his Heretical Opinions by condemning them to the Flames that there might not be a Spark left to kindle such dangerous Fires in the Church which Decree for the Reader 's satisfaction is here inserted The Judgment and Decree of the Vniversity of Oxford delivered in a Convocation held August 19th 1690. against some Impious and Heretical Propositions transcribed and quoted out of an Infamous Libel of late perfidiously printed within the said Vniversity and published with this Title The Naked Gospel which do Impugne and Assault the principal Mysteries of our Faith alway retained and preserved in the Catholick Church and especially in the Church of England IMPRIMATUR Jonathan Edwards Vice-Can Oxon. WHereas there is lately published an Infamous Libel entituled The Naked Gospel which under that specious Title destroys the Foundation of the Primitive Faith once delivered to the Saints assaults the chief Mysteries of our Religion and not only denies but reproacheth him that bought us the Lord Jesus Christ who is God blessed for ever And whereas it appears that this Libel deserving to be condemned to eternal Flames hath been by an unheard of Persideousness printed and published within this University therefore for the Honour of the Holy and Individual Trinity for Preservation of the Catholick Doctrine in the Church and moreover for the Defence as much as in us lieth of the Reputation and Esteem of this University which with all care we desire to preserve intire and inviolable We the Vice-Chancellor Doctors Proctors the Regent and Non-Regent Masters convocated in a full Senate of Convocation on the 19th of August 1690 in manner and place accustomed certain Propositions in the said Libel contained which we have caused to be transcribed and hereafter recited being first Read have by our Common Suffrages and the Unanimous Consent and Assent of Us all Decreed in manner following I. We do Condemn all and every of these Propositions and others to them belonging which for Brevity's sake are pretermitted as False Impious and Contumelious to the Christian Religion and especially to the Church of England And we Decree and Declare most of them to be Heretical as contrary
them that believed not Compare Psal 45. v. 6 7. with Heb. 1.8 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter He whose Throne is for ever and ever is God but Christ's Throne is for ever and ever therefore he is God Both these Propositions are express Scripture The next Scripture shall be that of Isai 7.14 A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and his name shall be called Emanuel compared with Mat. 1.23 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken viz. Isai 7.14 by the Prophet saying Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emanuel There is an Objection cast in our way which must be removed before we proceed Object It is said Matth. 1.21 The Angel of the Lord which appeard to Joseph told him that he should call his name Jesus How then was this of the Prophet fulfilled They shall call his name Emanuel Ans That Names are of two sorts some for distinction of Persons as proper Names others serve for Description of the Nature or Offices of a Person in the first respect he is called Jesus a Saviour there being no other Saviour but he for there is no other name given to man whereby he may be saved The other of Emanuel describes his Nature what he should be viz. God with us God manifested in the flesh So the same Prophet Isai 9.6 His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor c. And Jer. 23.6 This is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness And Luke 1.35 That which is born of thee shall be called the Son of God And it is observed that both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New do signify to be as well as to be called Justin Martyr Tertullian and other Ancients solved this Objection made by the Jews Venit Emanuel quia venit quod Emanuel significat The Emanuel is come because he is come who was signified by that name God with us not only to reconcile us to God but to be God Incarnate The Argument then is this Emanuel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in the Divine Essence Christ is Emanuel therefore he is God in the Divine Essence That the word God is to be understood of the most High God the Socinians grant But Crellius objects that the word est should be added and so the meaning is God is with us But when St. Matthew expounds the name without that Addition there is great Reason to reject it and if that had been the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the name as given by the Prophet St. Matthew would not have omitted it it being of great concern to the Glory of God and the Instruction of the Church The meaning of the Name therefore is not God is with us i. e. as says Crellius to help and assist us but Christ is God with us for the name Emanuel being put into English and applyed unto Christ it will appear whether St. Matthew or Crellius gives the best Interpretation This is St. Matthew's sence Christ is God with us i. e. God and Man And this is Crellius his Nonsence Christ God with Man is Is not this to add to and alter the sence of the Scripture Malach. 3.1 compared with Matth. 11.10 Behold I send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple This is he saith St. Matthew of whom it is written Behold I send my Messenger before thy face c. It is agreed that John the Baptist was this Messenger spoken of and the Argument is this He before whom John Baptist was to be sent to prepare his way is the God of Israel but Christ is he before whom John Baptist was to be sent c. therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is proved by Malachy where he that speaks is called the God of Israel and Lord of Hosts This Socinus grants The second Proposition is proved by St. Matthew applying it to Christ This is he of whom it is written c. The Sum of what is objected to this Argument is That the Text in Malachy is corrupted and instead of reading He shall prepare the way before me it should be read He shall prepare the way before thee But then how comes it to pass that no one Copy of that of Malachy or this in St. Matthew reads otherwise than we do He will not say they are all corrupted and we say none are corrupted But they ask How is it that what Malachy reads in the first Person He shall prepare the way before me Christ renders in the second Person He shall prepare the way before thee Ans This Objection will improve our Argument for when Malachy says He shall prepare the way before me which is spoken of the God of Israel and our Saviour renders it He shall prepare the way before thee and applys it to himself this proves that Christ was that God of Israel who spake in Malachy and so proves the Identity of the Essence of God the Father and the Son Moreover by comparing this place of Malachy with the Interpretation which our Saviour gives of it in St. Matthew we infer from Malachy the Unity of the Essence of the God of Israel and Christ and from that in Matthew we learn a distinction of Persons which had not been so intelligible if Christ had not changed the first Person or the word my into the second Person or the word thy in St. Matth. Deut. 6.13 compared with Matth. 4.10 the words are the same Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The Argument is this He that is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship is the God of Israel Christ is to be worshipped and served with Divine Worship therefore Christ is the God of Israel The first Proposition is express Scripture the second is granted by the Socinians therefore the Conclusion is undeniable Crellius when he would prove that Christ is not the true God from Joh. 20. This is life eternal to know thee only the â—rue God says That the word only excludes all others from being the true God Schichtingius is of another mind and says That this particle only when it is spoken of God doth not exclude those that depend on God in the thing spoken of Now if Crellius speaks the truth then Christ is not to be worshipped because the word only excludes him If Schichtingius speaks the truth then Christ may be the true God because the word only doth not exclude him Volkelius says That seeing Christ is subordinate to God in worshipping of Christ we worship God who hath given him so great Power and Dignity Ans This is against the Command that excludes all others for if Christ be a Man wholly distinguished
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
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
entred into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist And 1 Job 5.7 he plainly asserts the Doctrine of the Trinity There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. It is very observable what Grotius says in the Preface of his Annotations on St. John The Ancients among other causes of St. John 's Writing this Gospel do generally assign this as the chief that he might apply a Remedy to that Poyson which at that time was dispersed in the Church among all that professed the Name of Christ which could be no other than the denying of the Eternal Deity of the Son of God which that Evangelist asserted Now tho' it may seem a superfluous work to enquire into the Opinions of the Author of the Naked Gospel after the Censure of the University the reading whereof may satisfie any Judicious and Impartial Reader yet least I should seem to make an Adversary where I find none and to fight against my own Shadow as against some formidable Monster I shall 1. Consider what the Author hath said to clear himself from the Reasons of that Decree 2. Make some few general Remarks on the design of the Naked Gospel And 3ly More particularly Examine the Opinions asserted or insinuated by the Author In his Vindication p. 4. he declares his Faith to be no other than that of the Church of England and renounceth any word which in that or any other Book may seem to contradict it The Contradiction is not seeming but real and differs as much as Time doth from Eternity or the Doctrine of the Church of England of which I have given an account from the Arrian and Socinian Heresies if he renounceth any thing he must renounce almost all but how he will do it so as to remove the Scandal from the Church of England which as Monsieur Jeru observes is now conceived to be tainted with Socinian Doctrines from such Writings as this of the Naked Gospel I cannot well conceive unless he disclaim his being a true Son of the Church of England He says The Author of that Book is so far from denying the Divinity of Christ that he plainly asserts it But what Divinity is that is it the Eternal Godhead and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father This is not to be found yea it is the whole design of the Author to impugne it he grants him no other Divinity than the Arrians did of a created God nor indeed so much for he speaks of our Saviour under the same Notions and Expressions as Socinus and Smalâ—ius did granting him a Divinity but not a Deity of which more hereafter But he would prove his Assertion from these words of his That the Author of our Gospel was not only great but infinite But the Question is whom he means by our Author whether God the Father the prime or God the Son as the immediate Author for thus the Moral Law was given by Moses yet God was the prime Author and in this sence an Arrian may and the Socinians do say Christ waâ— the Messenger of God and received all his Commands from God and so the Author of the Gospel in the Socinians sence is infinite for thâ—s Crellius on Heb. 2. v. 3. says Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel as neither were the Angels of the Law but God was the prime Author of both the Law and Gospel though the Law was published by Angels and the Gospel by Christ so that Christ was no otherwise a Law-giver in publishing the Gospel than Moses was in proclaiming the Law which Crellius in his Book de Uno Deo endeavours to maintain at large and in the same sence I fear the Doctor calls the Author of our Gospel infinite viz. that God the Father is the Author of the Gospel But being conscious that some Expressions unsuitable to so plain an Assertion as that of the Infinity of the Author of the Gospel might drop from his hasty Pen he says p. 5. that such hasty Expressions ought to be thereby i. e. by the word Infinity to be interpreted Answ And so it might if he had applied it to the Person of Christ but he tells us the occasion of that Expression was Ch. 11. from the assurance of a Christian grounded on the Resurrection beyond the hopes of a Heathen and the Persons in whom the one and the other believed Now whom do the Arrians believe to be the Author of that Resurrection but God the Father whom they often affirm to have raised our Saviour from the Dead and it s no wonder if they own his Infinity this being the substance of what they say is necessary to be believed viz. That God raised Jesus from the Dead and to confess him our Lord denying that Christ arose by any power of his own Therefore he would not have his Expressions imputed to his setled Opinion but his too great hast and heat in a Question which did nor concern the Divinity of Christ but the manner of his Generation the former as he adds was on both sides acknowledged the latter was the whole subject of the Dispute which Constantines Letter so often calleth Silly Answ If the Divinity of Christ in its proper sence i. e. his Deity had been acknowlegded I believe there had been no dispute concerning the manner of his Generation the Question was Whether he were Consubstantial with the Father or not not concerning the manner or modus but whether he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with the Father If the Dispute in Constantine's time had been only about the manner of Christ's Generation the Doctor might have taken in the Parenthesis of Dr. Wallis that it is not distinctly declared by God nor are we able fully to comprehend it nor is it necessary for us to know but it is necessary to know that this Generation was from Eternity that we may ground our Faith and Hope in him that is God and so is able to save to the utmost all that come to God by him he being the Lord i. e. Jehovah our Righteousness What the Controversy in the Nicene Council against Arrius was and how it was decided shall appear anon 2ly He says the design of his Book was only to disable Humane Authority from imposing on our Belief more Doctrines than Christ and his Apostles declared to be necessary Here are two bold Strokes first the Doctor will determine what those necessary Doctrines are and then he will disable Magistrates from imposing any other and so we shall lose the great Fundamental the Eternal Godhead of Christ which his Naked Gospel doth impugne 3ly Another design of this Author he says is By a due confinement of Faith to enlarge Charity Ans The Apostles method to enlarge Charity was not to confine but propagate the Faith once delivered to the Saints as the best motive
which term he may comprehend all sort of Heresies an universal Toleration without any reserve which hath been pleaded for in former times 2. That through the whole Book it is not so much the manner of the Generation that is insisted on but the Eternity of it is denied and to this end the Arguments of the Arrians are applauded and the Reasons and Scriptures that affirm it are either suppressed or ridicul'd To begin with the Propositions referred to in the Decree he tells us That Mahomet did profess all the Articles of the Christian Faith but Mahomet did not profess the Eternal Generation of the Son of God therefore this is no Article of the Christian Faith in the Doctor 's Opinion What the Charity of the Socinians is toward such as hold the Doctrine of the Church of England we may learn from Smalcius at the end of his Book concerning the Divinity of Christ We doubt not to affirm boldly that not one of all those who believe Jesus Christ of himself God can ever by any means have certain hope of Eternal Life by vertue of his Opinion concerning Christ Hence they call us Polytheists Antichristians and say we are not worthy of the Name of Christians This is Charity enlarged In the same Paragraph he says When by nice and hot Disputes concerning especially the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the Minds of the People had been long confounded so that to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry then was there a tempting opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a reformer of such corruptions as were both too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied Now what did this Impostor reform but the Doctrine of the Trinity denying the Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost as such corruptions which were too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied It is a credible History of those Times which I have related that one Sergius a Monk and some other Apostate Christians join'd with Mahomet in compiling the Alchoran these retained so much veneration for our Saviour as to grant him what the Socinians do a kind of Divinity for they acknowledge him to be a true Prophet and so he may be called Divine as we call St. John by way of Eminency The Divine and so our Socinian Reformers agree with the Mahometan some say the Doctrine of the Trinity was laid aside to make way for the Turks to become Christians but we find a contrary effect that many Christians turn Turks I hope the Reader is satisfied by what I collected out of the Alchoran that Mahomet and his Arian Genius purposely designed to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and to represent our Saviour as a meer Man though as a Messenger of God And what less is implied in these words of the Doctor 's That to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry The next Proposition is This When the great Question concerning the eternity of his i. e. Christ's Godhead first embroiled the World Constantine condemned it as a silly Question fitter for Fools and Children than for Priests or wise Men. Note here The Question was not concerning the Manner of the Generation of our Saviour but the Eternity of his Godhead and how justly this Censure of Constantine's was past on that Question this Author says we may discover in three particulars 1. It was impertinent to our Lord's Design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplator's own purpose 3. It is dangerous This is Socinianism in grain Now because the Author would excuse himself from this Charge by pleading that he only relates the Opinion of Constantine the consideration of that good Emperor's management and determination of this great Question is more strictly and fully to be weighed This Author tells us p. 31. Col. 2. Such was the judgment of the great Constantine when the Game was first set on foot How it was then by the Arian party represented to him is not evident they dealt subtily but after that he had called the Nicene Council and was fully informed of the state of the Question he was so far from thinking it silly and vain that he wrote Letters to several Churches to inform them that after mature consideration the Opinion of Arius was condemned branded the Arians with the Name of Porphyrians caused their Books to be burnt and threatned death to any that should conceal them and hearing of the miserable end of that wretched man as it is described by Socrates he made it his business to extirpate it No doubt the Doctor knew these passages related of Constantine as well as those which he mentions calling it a Silly Question and fitter for Boys than for Priests what can he plead then for proclaiming the one and wholly suppressing the other which were Constantine's second and best Thoughts and his setled Judgment after mature deliberation Yet our Author still ridicules the Athanasian Doctrine as a Pushpin Controversie and says that Leonas reprimanded that party with Go and play the Fools at home Leonas was an Arian sent by Constantius the Arian Emperour to awe the Council nor did he bid them go and play the Fools at home I find no such thing in the place quoted by the Doctor viz. Socrates l. 2. c. 23. But there is a full Character of this Leonas in Soz. l. 4. c. 22. how that Acacius an Arian Bishop held private Conference with him and consulted for that Interest but could not prevail insomuch that when both Parties were met in his Lodgings and he found the Arian Party like to be baffled he bid them in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think no good Man would translate Go and play the Fools at home Socrates l. 2. c. 40. which signifies only Go and talk it out in the Church Leonas supposing they would be more modest and reverent in that Holy Place than in his House But of this the Historian observes in the next chap. 42 That Acacius and Eudoxius made great advantage For says he they perceiving the Indignation of the Emperour against Macedonius and other Hereticks deposed many of them and advanced Eudoxius to the Bishoprick of Constantinople for the contention was not so much for Religion as for Preferment the contending Parties having deposed each other and Acacius and Eudoxius with their Party did especially endeavour to depose the adverse Party and coined their New Creeds to that end being so confident of the Emperour's Favour and hence grew those various Confessions of some Councils under Constantius whereof p. 34. c. 4. the Doctor says That Socrates reckoned no less than Nine not Nine Councils but Confessions of which the Historian gives this particular Account calling them a Labyrinth of Expositions two of which were
Reason doth correct as an Oar in the Water seems broken to the view of the eye which Reason tells us is still strait and sound and Reason demonstrates the Sun to be more than Two hundred times greater than the Globe of the Earth though to our sight it appear not above four or five Foot in diameter Why may not the eye of Faith as much excel that of Reason as that of Reason doth the corporeal sence As for the Quotations of Volkelius from Rom. 12.1 Of our reasonable service it doth not prove that Evangelical Worship as prescribed ought to be measured by human Reason but implies that such Worship is just and reasonable as well as spiritual in opposition to the carnal Worship under the Law where Sheep and Doves were offered to God which were unreasonable Creatures and dead Sacrifices whereas now we are to offer up ourselves a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God in which respect it is called a reasonable Service The Platonists were Masters of as much Natural Reason as the Socinians and if they on I know not what Tradition and Enquiry did believe a plurality of Persons in the Godhead it is strange that the Socinians by the help of the Scripture should not yield their assent The Platonists had no temptation nor interest to lead them to the Notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but perhaps some Tradition from the Jews which their Reason judged probable St. Basil on the words of St. John 1.1 In the beginning was the word says I have known many that had not the knowledge of the Scripture to magnifie this Truth St. Aug. l. 10. c. 29. de Civitate Dei speaks of a Platonist that was wont to say That the beginning of St. John 's Gospel whom yet he counted a Barbarian was worthy to be written in Letters of Gold and preached in the greatest Congregations That in many Books of the Platonists mention was made of God and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Son whom Zenon stiled the Maker of the World And Numenius calls God Creantis Dei Patrem The Father of that God that created the World And what is yet more to be admired some Platonists reckoned the Word or Reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the beginning to be with God and to be God by whom was made whatever was made that he descended into a Body and put on Flesh but even then manifested the Dignity of his Nature Of these we may say That they were Naturaliter Christiani as Tertullian doth And they spake the same sense though not with the same affection for the Platonists speak of Three Principles the First they call the Being the Second Reason the Third the Soul of the World The Being begets Reason not by a Decree or Act of Will but by Nature as Fire begets Heat and Light and Reason produceth the Soul of the World Platinus says The Father and Reason are One and the same Being coexistent and not forsaking each other The Enneads wherein he speaks this is entituled Concerning the Three Hypostases Amelius another Platonick says according to that of St. John That Plato taught That in the beginning was Reason and Reason was with God and was God that she made all Things and was the Light of Man Justin Martyr says That Christ was known in part to Socrates under the Notion of Reason which foretold things future and taking the same Infirmities as we hath instructed us by himself And that the Opinions of Plato are not very remote from those which we have of Christ St. Augustine agrees with him that changing a few Words and Sentences they would become Christians as some of the later Platonicks have done And Tertullian says That when the Christians say that God made the World by his Reason they speak after the manner of the Sage Heathen Tertul. Apology Now if the Heathen saw so much by whatever means as to give their assent to a plurality of Hypostases or Personalities in the Godhead our Masters of Reason the Socinians seem to contradict the wiser sort of Philosophers as well as the generality of Christians in their Opinions Those that write the History of the Pagans in America do assure us that among some of them there are Notions of the Trinity still preserved and it is supposed that by Tradition from the Ancient Jews and Chaldeans in whose Cabala there were some dark Speeches concerning the Trinity which though they were careful not to make known to the Heathen yet some Notions of it were entertained and spread abroad into the World Having shewn in what sence the Ancient Greek Philosophers understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may very much confirm the sence of St. John if it appear that among the Jews the same signification was familiarly received and this will appear from the Targum where in Expounding the 110th Psalm these words The Lord said to my Lord sit thou c. they read The Lord said to his Word which Targum was written about the same time when the Gospel of St. John was and Philo who lived about the same time calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest agreeably to what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of our Saviour says chap. 4.12 For the word of God is quick and powerful and to explain what he meant he adds Seeing therefore we have a great High Priest passed into the heavens c. In this sence the Hellenists used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius says That the Ancient Jews and Christians teach That when an Angel in the Old Testament is called Jehova it was not a meer Angel but cui ad fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such appearances we often read of in the Old Testament So that the Notion of the Messias did pass among the Jews for the Son of God under the Name of the Word of God The Gnosticks also and Cerinthus used it in the same sence which gave occasion to St. John to describe our Saviour by that Word which was left known in those days and to assert the Divinity of our Saviour under that Word which he doth so effectually that the Socinians finding they could not object against it have thought on a New Exposition and a New Creation made by this Word which as it hath no Foundation being ex nihilo so it resolves into nothing but the Word of God shall endure for ever And this is his Name The Word of God Rev. 19. So the Syriack Translators of St. John's Gospel gives it this Preface In the Name of our Lord and of our God Jesus Christ and the like to the other Gospels and Epistles and they celebrate a Festival in commemoration of the Mother of God Because Philo was a Jew and one well skilled in the Greek as well as the Hebrew Idioms which were in use about our Saviour's time it is worth our observation how he speaks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
or the Phariâ—â—s his greatest Enemies who heard how he was honoured by the Name of the Son of David and knew that the Messias was to be of the Seed of David the contrary whereof if they could have proved it would have been their first and best Argument against our Saviour Now it is a prophane thing to think that the Evangelists did undertake to prove what they were not able to perform and that they should be guilty of such an Error as the Doctor imputes to them in the beginning of their Gospels to amuse us with Uncertainties and so draw an invincible Prejudice upon their Gospels That the whole Mystery of the Incarnation should be understood was not necessary but that it should be believed was so and this was not impossible to the Poor except upon the Socinian grounds viz. That we cannot believe what our reason cannot comprehend The belief of the Virgin Mary on the Message of the Angel That she should conceive a Son that should be called i. e. be the Son of God for which the Angel pronounceth her Blessed The belief of St. Peter of Martha St. Thomas and the Eunuch who believed Christ to be the Son of God do shew that such a belief was not impossible though they understood not the whole Mystery of the Incarnation the Blessed Virgin did question How shall this be Luke 1.34 she could not conceive the manner but believed the Message and v. 45. Blessed is she that believeth He quotes Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Triphon the Jew p. 31. c. 1. in these words Though I shall not prove that Christ is God otherwise than by proving that this is the Christ and that it was foretold that Christ should be such i. e. by the Harmony of the Old and New Testament Yet there are some among us my Friends who profess him to be the Christ and affirm him to be a Man born of Men with whom indeed I do not agree nor will many speak so who are of the same Opinion with me By which words it is plain saith the Doctor that however the belief of Christ's Godhead was then most generally received yet were not the otherwise minded excluded from the benefit of his Redemption as Unbelievers How this Conclusion can be inferred from his saying that he doth not agree with such is not so plain to me the right Inference from these words of Justin Martyr is That the Godhead of Christ was generally received in his Age. What he adds That the Controversy hath gotten a new value not from any new intrinsick Worth but from the Price which it hath cost is an invidious Reflection on the Orthodox Christians who were on the defensive Part being as he grants in possession and in all Ages suffered more vexation and cruelty from the Arians Donatists and other Sectaries that joyned with them than from their Heathen Persecutors whom yet the Doctor would accuse as the Authors of all that Confusion and Bloodshed occasioned by the Heresies and Divisions of the Arians and Donatists This I suppose the Doctor knew so well that he seems ashamed to retort as he offered p. 39. c. 1. The Sentence of Theodosius of Heresy Infamy or Punishment Chap. 8. is spent to prove That the Question concerning Christ's Godhead was decided by no other Evidence but of Papal and Imperial Authority whereas indeed it was determined by the first Christian Emperor in the Council of Nice wherein I agree with the Author That if Authority must determine it none is better than that of the Great Constantine whose Decision you have heard before and may more fully hereafter Certain it is that there was no Papal Authority when the Question was first determined P. 33. The Doctor endeavours to expose Athanasius as saying in defence of the Trinity That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are as Bishop Priest and Deacon but Bishop Priest and Deacon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore so are Father Son and Holy Ghost The words indeed are mentioned by Athanasius but as the words of Anonaeus the Arian which Athanasius retorts upon him for thus saith Orthodox He that owns the Coessentiality is a Christian but he that thinks him to be no Christian who owns the Coessentiality and yet owns it himself condemns himself as that wicked Servant by his own mouth Anom But where am I found to own it Orth. You said We think the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be as Bishop Priest and Deacon Anom I confess that I said so as Bishop Priest and Deacon Orth. But Bishop Priest and Deacon are Coessential therefore you confess Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Coessential It is evident then that Athanasius only takes advantage of his Adversary by a necessary consequence from his own Argument Sandius as learned a Person as the Doctor is much more ingenuous for p. 71. l. 1. he says Thus I do certainly think the Arians to have taken this Comparison of Father Son and Holy Ghost with Bishop Priest and Deacon from Clemens Rom. and Ignatius for so we read in Athan. Diolog 1. de Trinit And then repeats the same words Thus some furious Men resolve to hurt their Adversaries through the sides of their own Friends And all Men may perceive how irrational that Inference is which immediately followeth in the Doctors Discourse Might not a Heathen at this rate saith he justify Polytheism c. The Doctor represents Athanasius as a Man void both of Reason Religion and Sence p. 33. Might not a Heathen says he justify Polytheism at the same rate viz. as Athanasius doth the Trinity Thus the Arians represent all the Nicene Fathers as a company of stupid and ignorant Dunces and the Socinians think the Trinitarians Idolaters and Blasphemers void of common Reason and in their sence the Worship of God by our Liturgy is in many parts counted Idolatry And if the Doctor had bestowed but as much time to read the Arian Controversy as the Socinian which he says was not more than the space of one Day we should likely have had all the Sham-plots which were so shamefully detected and exploded against Athanasius revived as some modern Arians have done And in truth their Slanders and false Reports are the best Weapons they have hence it is that they attempt for the Reputation of their Cause to blast the Honour of the Great Constantine as if he became an Apostate and died an Arian Which is as true as the Fiction of the Heathen That he was a Leaper and intended to make a Bath of the Bloud of Christian Infants for his Cure Whereas Eusebius who knew him intimately doth testify that at sixty Years old he was in perfect health active strong and fit for Military Exercises L. 4. c. 53. Nor hath any Heathen however provoked by Constantine through his Zeal for the Christian Religion ever mentioned him to be an Arian which had there been any truth in it either Julian Marcellinus Zosimus or some other
Heathen that wrote his History would have done but we see some that call themselves Christians dare to do what the Heathen abhor And of this kind is that Calumny of Sandius which I could not read without great wonder That Constantine the Great did never intirely believe the Unity of the Trinity L. 2. p. 186. for proof whereof he produceth one Benedictus Presbyter who might be an Irish Priest for ought I know or can judge by his evidence his words are these p. 159. l. 2. Constantine was not wholly a Christian but as Tentator one that would make trial was baptized by Silvester in the name of the Trinity but not confessing the Unity And he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia And having obtained Victory but lost his Sence Sensu alienatus said I will go to Nicomedia where he was rebaptized declining to the Opinion of the Arians Such a rambling inconsistent Evidence as this is enough to draw a Prejudice against all the rest I have not all the Records whereby to examine the other Witnesses which he doth produce to prove Constantine an Arian Orosius whom he quotes says nothing of it Sulpitius Severus l. 2. p. 138. says That by the two Arius's the great Authors of the Arian Perfidy the Emperor was corrupted and thinking to do a religious Office he became a Persecutor he banished the Bishops delt severely with the Clergy and Laity that departed from the Communion of the Arians Now this being the first particular which this Witness mentioneth of Constantine and for remedy whereof he says the Nicene Council was called cannot be understood of Constantine's setled Judgment or constant Practice which is otherwise related by other Authentick Historians and by himself who says afterward that the Emperor embraced the Decrees of the Nicene Council which condemned the Arians who thereby were calmed and joyned in Communion with the Catholicks So that neither is this Witness consistent with himself for he was a profest Enemy to the Arians Who he says not being able to overthrow the Faith by Argument sought to destroy the Champions of it by suborning false Accusers and feining Faults where they could find none of which he gives Instances 3ly That Optatus calls Constantine an Apostate he only says but quotes not the place which is so much for his Cause that I believe he would not have omitted it if it were really so for it would have weighed much more than that rabble of Quotations which he collects as so many St. Omers Evidences such as Philostorgius and his Rhemenses and his Anonymous Authors what Socrates Sozom. Evagr. and other known Writers especially Eusebius Pamph. have said he durst not produce though he useth their names But he quotes at large the words of St. Heirome Chron. ad Am. 340. That Constantine at the end of his life was baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia declining to the Opinion of Arius And saith Sandius here is no Evasion left that it may be understood of Constantine the Son c. Perhaps Sandius had read that it was Constantine the Son that was baptized also at Nicomedia as he may in Marianus Scotus and certainly it was after his Death that the Persecution of the Catholicks begun when Constantius favoured the Arians By the way I observe that the first Witness Benedictus said Cessavit persecutio That on the Death of Constantine the Great the Persecution ceased which is contrary to what St. Heirom says That from the time of his Baptism the spoil of Churches and Discord of the whole World was continued home to his days But there is more to be replied to St. Heirome as first He doth not say he was of the Arian Opinion but declined to it which was only a Conjescture of St. Hierom's because he was baptized by Eus Nicod who was reputed an Arian But as it is observed by Richerius a Doctor of Sorbon p. 639. in his History of General Councils That this Eusebius did not openly profess himself an Arian as long as Constantine lived and the opposition that he made against Athanasius was persued on other pretences and that Constantine banished him upon a false Accusation that he had intercepted the Customs which were to be sent him from Alexandria to Constantinople And he was also so kind to Arius upon another false Suggestion That he differed nothing from the Nicene Faith Now St. Hierom hearing of these Actions of Constantine and not being truly informed of the reasons of them might conjecture that he inclined to the Arian Opinion and why might he not be mistaken in his Relation of Constantine as well as in that concerning Meletius in the same Chronicle whom he reports to be an Enemy of the Church and yet it is most certain saith Richerius that none besides Athanasius did do or suffer more for the Catholick Faith as St. Basil in his Epistles and Greg. Naz. who familiarly conversed with him have attested Doubtless neither Eusebius Pamph. nor Athanasius nor the rest of the approved Catholick Writers would have so recommended the Actions of Constantine if he had been a known Arian and for the sake of that Opinion had persecuted the Orthodox and Bishops such are the Weapons of Naked Gospellers who licking themselves clean with their Tongues are wont to spit out the Filth and Venome in Calumnies and Reproaches in the face of their Adversaries hence Athanasius is represented as a Drunkard and incontinent Person and the Fathers of the Nicene Council as a company of rude unexperienced unlearned and inconstant Men and the great Constantine who confirmed the Nicene Faith suffereth as an Arian to this day See Sandius p. 167. It is the Judgment of a very great Man Gothofred in his Notes on Philostorgius That while Constantine was living no Man durst open his mouth against the Nicene Creed and that those who followed Eusebius did profess their assent to it p. 62. And that Eusebius Nicomed and others of his Party in that Council did subscribe to the same p. 36. which Theodoret says they did that putting on the Sheep's skin they might act the more like Wolves Theod. l. 1. c. 19. As they did shortly after the Death of Constantine And Philostorgius says Some of them recanted while Constantine lived and confessed that they had done wickedly in subscribing to that Council for fear of his displeasure Gothof p. 43 44. And Photius observes it to be a Fiction of Philostorgius That Constantine sometime after the Nicene Council should send forth his Letters condemning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should subscribe to the same of whom Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos p. 132. says That he died firm in the Nicene Faith about a Year after that Council viz. Anno 326. And that Constantine dyed in the same Faith besides the Testimony of Athanasius in his Ad vitam Solitariam agentes Epiph. Her 69. Theod. l. 2. c. 5. And Lex 1. Cod. Theodos contra Heretic do attest
be divided as Enemies by your strife about small and unnecessary things These Actions are more agreeable to the Ignorance of Boys than to the Wisdom of Priests and wise Men but seeing you have the same Faith and the same Opinion of our Religion and our Law requires concord of Minds and the Controversie between you doth not concern the Substance of Religion there ought not to be any discord between you This he said before he had been duly informed of the State of the Controversie what his thoughts were afterward you shall hear anon But as Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. says neither the Emperours Letters nor the Endeavours of Hosius could compose the Dissention the Emperour therefore resolved to summon a General Council at Nice in Bithinia to which all the Bishops of Europe Africa and Asia were called and there met above 300 Bishops besides Presbyters Deacons c. many of whom were eminent for Wisdom in Speaking Holiness of Life Patience in Suffering Modesty and Meekness of Manners these being assembled the Emperour appears the Bishops having done their Reverence he sate not down himself until he had beckned to them to sit down and he spake first exhorting them to Peace and Unity and whereas they had accused one another in several Libels the day before he injoyn'd them to burn those Libels and to forgive each other as they expected Christ should forgive them Then he gave them leave to propose the Differences that concern'd Religion of which Eusebius in the Third Book of the Life of Constantine gives this Account That many things being proposed by both Parties the Emperour attended with great patience and intention of mind weighing what was offered by both Parties moderating and allaying their heats and by his own arguments convincing some and perswading others they were at last brought to an agreement which was committed to Writing Some particulars whereof saith Socrates l. 1. c. 8. I will repeat least any should condemn the Proceedings of that Council or as Sabinus did account them ignorant and simple Men as particularly he did Eusebius who subscribed not until he had strictly examined the Controversie however he commends the Emperour as being very skilful in the Matters of Faith Socrates also commends Eusebius Pamphyli as a faithful Witness of what was done in that Council The Faith then agreed on was drawn into the Form which is now in our Liturgy to which they added an Anathema against such as should affirm That there was a time when the Son of God was not and that was made of things that were not or that he had some other Substance or Essence created or subject to change To this 318 Bishops subscribed five only refused because of the word Consubstantial whereof Eusebius and Theognis afterward recanted and were reconciled the rest kept in Banishment with Arius This Eusebius having after long deliberation assented to the Nicene Creed sends a Copy of it to his People of Caesarca with a particular Account how it was examined and tells his People That it was the same which he had received from the Bishops his Predecessors when he was first instructed by them and which they professed at their Baptism and which he would defend with his Life he tells them the Emperour confirm'd it first with the addition of the word Consubstantial to which they all agreed And to remove the prejudices which his People might have conceiv'd against him for standing out so long till he was sentenced to Banishment and then conforming he tells them with how great Judgment he considered both the Reasons of his Dissent and of his Consent suspending his Assent from the first to the last however as long as he met with any thing that offended him but when after due examination he found the sence of the words controverted to agree with that Faith which he at first received he embraced them And what those were he gives a particular Account viz. 1. These words were examined Of the Substance of the Father concerning which there arose divers Questions and Answers and after Examination it was agreed That the words of the Substance signified That the Son was of the Father but not as a part of the Father to this I consented as also to the word Consubstantial for the sake of Peace and that I might not fall from the right understanding of it in like manner to the words Begotten not made because it was urged that the word made was common to the Creatures which were made by the Son to which he had no likeness being of a more excellent Substance which the Scripture teach was of the Father by a secret manner of Generation not to be expressed and this Consubstantiality was not to be in a corporeal manner as in mortal Creatures for it was not by division of Substance nor Abscission nor change of the Father's Substance and Power because this was different from all those but it signifies that the Son had no likeness with the Creatures that were made by him but was in all things like to the Father by whom he was begotten and of no other Substance and to this we consented knowing that many ancient famous Bishops and learned Writers speaking of the Divinity of the Father and the Son used the same word The Emperour also expressed the same sence of the word Consubstantial which he said Was not to be understood as if the Son were of the Father by Division or any Section as in corporeal Substances because an intellectual and immaterial Nature admits not of the Affections of Bodies And that you may know something of the History of Arius I shall give you this brief Account Arius was a Priest of Alexandria in Egypt a Man infinitely desirous of Glory and Novelty as Ruffinus who knew him reports one that corrupted many Virgins who had professed Virginity he and some others of that Church whereof Alexander was Bishop a Learned and Orthodox Divine who suspecting that the Ancient Heresie which denied the Godhead of our Saviour was crept into this Church as the Event shews it was summoned his Clergy and discoursing to them concerning the Mystery of the Trinity told them of the Unity in the Trinity Arius one of the Presbyters skilful in Logick supposing the Bishop affected to the Doctrine of Sabellius thus objects to his Bishop If the Father begot the Son then he that was begotten had a beginning of his Existence and so there was a time when the Son was not and if so he had his Existence out of nothing Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. From these unheard of Assertions he provoked many to consider that Question and from this Spark a great Fire was kindled which spread through all Egypt Lybia and the Upper Thebais and many other Provinces for many others favoured Arius especially Eusebius of Nicomedia which much displeased Alexander so that by a Council of Bishops he removed Arius and some others and writes to the neighbouring Bishops to this purpose That
wicked Mâ—n were risen up in his Diocess teaching such a Defection as may be rightly called A Fore-running of Antichrist I could wish says he this mischief might have been confined among the Apostates but seeing Eusebius of Nicomedia undertakes their Patronage and hath written Letters to recommend them and their Heresie I could not forbear to forewarn you of these Apostates and their Opinions and that you attend not to the Writings of Eusebius The Names of those that have forsaken the Church Arius Achillas Aithales Carpones another Arius Sarmates Euzoius Lucius Julianus Menas Hellodius Gaius and with these Secundus and Theanas who were formerly called Bishops That which they rashly publish is this God was not alway a Father the Word of God was not alway but had its beginning of nothing for God which is created him that was not out of that which was not and so the Son they say is a Creature not like his Father in Substance nor the True Word of God nor his True Wisdom but one of his Works and Creatures but abusively so called being made by the Word and Wisdom which is in God that made him and all things That the Son knows not the Father nor can perfectly know him nor doth he know his own Substance what it is but was made as an Instrument by which God would create us nor had he been made unless God would have made us by him To them that ask whether the Word of God could be changed as the Devil was they answer Yea that he is of a mutable Nature because he was created Arius with great impudence affirming these Things We together with almost an hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia did anathematize him and his Adherents but Eusebius hath received them that he may joyn Impiety to Piety Falshood to Truth but they shall not prevail for Truth will overcome for whoever heretofore heard such things or now hearing them doth not stop his Ears who hearing St. John say In the beginning was the Word will not condemn these Mens sayings There was a time when he was not c. These Letters had various effects on a great many and not much to the advantage of Alexander for Arius and his Party were very diligent in writing on the contrary behalf Eusebius also Bishop of Nicomedia heartily espoused his Cause partly out of a private grudge between him and Bishop Alexander and partly through his own Opinion which agreed with those of Arius and the Emperour being then at Nicomedia with whom he was in favour and by this opportunity he had great influence on the neighbouring Bishops to whom he wrote divers Letters on the behalf of Arius he wrote also to Alexander himself admonishing him to receive Arius again into his Communion and by these means the Divisions were so great that not only the Bishops but the People also ran into Parties and the Meletians also joyned with Arius so that they wrote to Alexander to recall the Excommunication against him pleading that his Opinions were right for Arius did so palliate his Heresie as that to the unwary and more ignorant sort both of Clergy and People it seemed nothing different from the Orthodox Doctrine The Emperor also wrote to a contrary purpose to the Church of Alexandria Socrates p 30. That all things concerning the Controversies that were moved had been acurately discussed and examined by the Council But O! what great and grievous Blasphemies some did declare against our Saviour and our Hope of Eternal Life producing things contrary to the Scripture inspired from above and to the Faith yet professing their belief of them whereas therefore more than 300 Bishops which were to be admired for their modesty and diligence conformed by their unanimous consent that which according to the Rule of the Divine Law is the only Faith Arius only was found who overcome by diabolical fraud and design did first sow this mischievous Evil among you and others but let us embrace the Opinion which Almighty God hath delivered and return to our Brethren from whose Fellowship that impudent Minister of the Devil hath separated them for that which hath been decreed by more than 300 Bishops is to be esteemed as the Divine Sentence seeing that the Holy Ghost residing in their Minds hath revealed his Divine Will unto them He assured them also That the Definitions of the Council were not made without diligent examination Wherefore in another Epistle to the Bishops and People mentioned by Socrates p. 32. of the Edition by Valesius he says That the Arians following evil and malitious Men deserved to suffer the same infamous punishment with them and as Porphyry who wrote against the Christian Religion had his Books destroyed and himself branded to Posterity so it is my Command That Arius and his Followers shall be call'd Porphyrians and that if any Book written by Arius be found that it be consumed by Fire that no remembrance of him may remain and that such as conceal his Books shall suffer Death These were the Emperour's second thoughts It hapned that Constantia the Emperour's Sister had entertained an Arian Presbyter who often talkt of Arius complaining to her how much he was wronged by the Council at Nice but she durst not commend his Case to the Emperour till being sick and often visited by the Emperour she commended this Presbyter to the Emperour as a devout and faithful Person who having got into the Emperour's favour he told him as he had done his Sister of the hard measure Arius had from the Council whom he affirmed to be of the same Judgment with them and that if he might be admitted to the Emperour's presence he would declare his consent to their Decrees The Emperour wondered to hear this and said That if Arius would subscribe those Decrees he would not only admit him to his presence but send him home to Alexandria with Honour and wrote to him to that purpose See the Letter Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 25. wondering that he had not declared sooner seeing as the Historian says the Emperour had often exhorted him to it but being come to Constantinople he with Euzoius and some others presented the Emperour an Account of their Faith in Writing which was this To believe in One God the Father Almighty and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son who was made by him before all Ages God the Word by whom all things in Heaven and Earth were made who came down and was incarnate who suffered and rose again and ascended and shall come to judge the Quick and Dead and in the Holy Ghost the Resurrection of the Flesh and the Life to come in One Catholick Church of God from one end of the World to the other this we believe as God shall judge us now and in the World to come On this Confession the Emperour ordered his Return to Alexandria whether he went and revived the Divisions among the People framing new Accusations against Alexander the Emperour therefore
of Rome Was St. Peter Popish or was his Confession viz. Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God a Popish Confession Were his Successors for Three hundred Years who were Confessors and Martyrs for the same Faith Papal I am heartily sorry and ashamed to hear how to recommend the Socinian Doctrine he proclaims the Arian as well as the Athanasian Doctrine equally unworthy not only of our Faith but our Study Is not this the Quintessence of Socinianism See p 39. c. 1. A very bold assertion is that which followeth That at the rise of the Controversie most of the Bishops understood not its meaning and that the best Ages of the Church thought it not worth the knowing If by the first rise of this Doctrine he means the Council of Nice as it is evident he doth how they understood and valued it is beyond Controversie and how far it was tolerated by Bishop Alexander whom he calls the first Author of the Nicety tolerated Arius and his Confederates by excommunicating and persecuting him until God by an extraordinary Judgment took him from troubling that Church which he had redeemed by his own Blood is known in the Ecclesiastical History of those times if his Scholars can presume of God's Pardon or of Communion with his Church from that instance it is a strong presumption indeed the best means is to do what he derides that is to herd with the Primitive Christians and Martyrs as he expresseth it which departed the World before this unhappy Question was proposed those I mean who died in the belief of their Saviour's Deity and I hope it is of them he says and not of Cerinthus Ebion the Sabellians and Samosatenians that they are saved without dispute Athanasius challenged the Arians to produce one Father of any repute in the Church of God that was of the same Judgment with them which they always studiously declined as Socrates shews by the instance of Sisinnius l. 5. c. 10. And how the World came to be so much Arian as St. Hierom reports is evident from St. Hilary viz. Because their Teachers concealed their own Opinions and used such words in their Homelies to the People as the Catholicks did whereby not only the People but Bishops and Emperours were deceived by them they told them Christ was God the true God and God by Nature perfect God before all Ages And hence as St. Hilary notes the People remained Catholicks under Arian Bishops but as he observes Contra Arium Auxentium p. 215. They had their reserves They give Christ the Name of God says he but as they give the same to Men they confess him to be the Son of God but as others in the Sacrament of Baptism are made the Sons of God They say he was before all Ages and so they say were the Angels and Devils but that Christ is the true God that is that the Deity of the Father and the Son is the same this they deny and hence it is says he that under the Priests of Antichrist the People of Christ are not corrupted while they believe that to be the Faith which they hear in their Teachers words They hear that Christ is God they believe what they hear they hear that he is the Son of God they believe it to be true they hear in Dei nativitate inesse Dei veritatem they hear that he was before all Ages they think he was Eternal Sanctiores sunt aures Plebis quam corda Sacerdotum There is more Sanctity in the Ears of the People than in the Hearts of the Priests Thus was Constantius deceived the Arian Priest whom on the commendation of his dying Sister he took into favour perswaded him that Arius did believe all the Decrees of the Nicene Council and as an ancient Writer says Hereticos admisit Constantius Heresin non Amplexus If Constantius favoured the Arians it was not from any favour he had to their Heresie and it is observed by Theodoret l. 3. c. 8. that though he disliked the word Consubstantial yet he owned the sence of it That the Word was God that Christ was the true and natural Son of God begotten of the Father before all Ages and condemn'd them that call'd him a Creature And Greg. Nazianzen had the same Opinion of him for he term'd him The most Divine Emperour and greatest Lover of Christ and he was never accounted a Flatterer The Councils also under him profest all the Articles of the Nicene Creed the word Consubstantial only omitted Elias Cretensis gives this reason for the Laws which he made on the behalf of the Arians That being deceived by wicked Men he made Laws for their Toleration against them that were pious But this trick was learn'd them by one George Bishop of Laodicea who argued thus Seeing that God made all things and all things were made of what was not therefore the Son was made of things that were not yet was he the Son of God as made by him Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis who after great obstinacy subscribed to the Nicene Decrees but would not consent to the Condemnation of Arius gave this reason for it because partly in the Letters which he wrote to them and in the Conference they had with him they could not judge him guilty of the Opinions charged on him See Constantine's Letter in Socrates l. 1. c. 38. He used that Maxime of Matchiavel He that knows not how to dissemble knows not how to live and therefore he complied with the Opinions of all of other Hereticks but never could with the Orthodox for which reason he was compared to the Camelion of which Creature it is said it could conform itself to all Colours except the White P. 39. col 2. The Doctor seems to accuse our Saviour of a Rhetorical Hyperbole in appropriating to himself such great Titles It is very frequent for Rhetorick saith he to exceed but never to diminish the Grammatical Character of a Person whose Honour the Writer professeth to advance and on this account they i. e. the Socinians think it more reasonable that those expressions which exalt our Saviour's Person to an equality with the Father should stoop to those which speak him inferiour than that those which speak him inferiour should be strained up to those which speak him equal as if ourself had exalted himself above his degree who so humbled himself as to become obedient to death even the death of the Cross But this is an Argument for which he is beholding to Sandius the Arian who p. 139. of his Appendix speaking of the Omniscience of our Saviour pleads That such expressions are taken from the Flowers of Rhetorick by which the things treated of are sometimes exalted and sometimes depressed and in the present Subject saith he is often given in the Praises due to Christ against the Jews and Gentiles thereby to aggrandize not to depreciate him Wherefore the Doctor commends the Arians for a truer Method who when one expression
the promise of Eternal Life to the Believer and therefore he says p. 42. Col. 2. Whoever ascribes it to any other Doctrine however true however revealed makes himself equal to Christ in Authority and superiour in Faithfulness If then that Scripture of our Saviour This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 20.31 And 1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 St. Augustine reads the Text thus To know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God and so doth St. Chrysostom Now if I say Eternal Life be appropriate to this knowledge that Christ is the true God then it is a fundamental Article of Faith P. 43. There can be no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts concerning Matters of Faith saith the Doctor How then comes it to pass that there are so many Controversies concerning Matters of Faith and that each Party denies Salvation to their Adversaries that differ from them His appeal to natural Faith will never be able to determine the Controversies that are yet undecided concerning such Fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to Salvation Socinus de Adoratione Christi says Bonas rationes rectas ex verbo dei consecutiones in sacris disputationibus aspernare nec admittere velle hominis est suae causae parum fidentis He says 3. We need not ought not to be uncharitable to any who differ from us in other Doctrines to the belief whereof the Promise is not appropriate But is Eternal Life any where promised to those that believe that Jesus Christ was only a Creature and a meer Man Can we hope for Salvation without satisfaction to the Divine Justice or can we make satisfaction Is it not good Divinity to say there is no Salvation but in the Name and through the Merits of Jesus Christ who died for our Sins and rose again for our Justification I have shewn you how the Doctor would interpret this latter Scripture Rom. 4. ult Commodius interpretationis as they call them there but if their little Criticisms and false Punctations should be admitted the Scriptures would indeed be made as he says A Nose of Wax witness their interpretation of John 8.58 Before Abraham was I am i. e. say they Before Abraham was made the Father of the Faithful and of many Nations that were converted by the preaching of the Gospel I am viz. the Light of the World So Eniedinus renders the Confession of St. Thomas as an Exclamation directed to God the Father O my Lord and my God as saith he we are wont to do when we behold any strange sight And Christ's words to the Thief Luke 23.43 are thus pointed I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise viz. When I shall come to Judgement Thus Francis David on the words of St. Stephen Act. 7.59 makes this Comment O God the Father who art the Lord of Jesus receive my Soul In this ch p. 44. c. 2. the Doctor says that the Remission which the prophets promised reached only to temporal punishments but that by Christ to eternal life How then can a natural Faith secure us of Life eternal when that Faith though greatly improved by the Prophets could not do it Ch. 11. in this Chapter he revives and pleads for another Socinian Tenet for the Resurrection not of the same but another Body He propounds the Question thus Whether any Promise doth necessarily import a restitution of the same numerical Matter and undertakes to prove That it is more honourable to God and more serviceable to the Design of the Gospel to believe the contrary But First This is contrary to the Grammatical Signification of the Word and to the Scripture by him quoted viz. That God gives to every seed his own Body And Ruffinus mentions the word Hujus the Resurrection of this Body which though it shall have a kind of Transfiguration by substraction of the old earthly Qualities and the addition of such as are new and heavenly yet the subject shall continue the same which St. Paul means 1 Cor. 15.53 This corruptible shall put on incorruption that as we have born the image of the earthly we may bear the image of the heavenly and as Job says With these eyes see God Job 19.25 And the Justice of God requires this that as the Faithful have born the Marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in their Bodies wherein they were Partakers of the Sufferings of Christ and were consecrated to him as the Temples of the Holy Ghost may partake of the Reward and Crown of Glory in the same Bodies What he says of our being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves as well that we shall have no Bodies as that we shall not have the same The change that shall be made in our vile Bodies doth not alter the form of our Bodies no more than it doth the Body of Christ which though it be now a glorious Body yet is still the same numerical Body and to call that a Load of Carion which the Apostle calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost is not becoming a Christian Doctor As we believe therefore that the same Body our Saviour which suffered is now glorified and that the same Bodies that remain to the last day shall be taken up to meet the Lord in the Air shall be the same Bodies that shall be ever with the Lord. And as we believe that Christ arose from the Grave in the same Body wherein he died so we believe that he carried the same into the heavenly Sanctuary and shall come at last in the same Body to judge both the Quick and Dead that all Eyes may look on their Crucified Saviour and unless it shall be the same Body it cannot properly be called a Resurrection And no doubt but our Resurrection shall be conform with that of Christ's as the Apostle intimates Rom. 8.11 He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies To this purpose St. Augustine Epl. 57. That as Christ glorified his own Body but destroyed not its nature so will he give Glory to our Bodies but not take away the nature of them Nor indeed do other qualities any more alter the nature of our Bodies than of our Souls which for substance shall be the same But lastly if this Enquiry be a matter of Curiosity not of Faith why doth he oppose the Doctrine so long received in the Church to bring in a Socinian Tenet And now p. 50. c. 1. he gives us the Socinian Scheme of the Naked Gospel such as Socinus Crellius Sclichtingius Smalcius and the whole Tribe have fancied and published to the World before him That its business was to reduce the Jews from their Bondage under the Law of Moses and the Gentiles from their worse bondage under the Worship of Devils to the
things above Reason though to a carnal Apprehension they seem contrary to Reason Why else doth our Saviour pronounce them blessed that have not seen and yet believed viz. as St. Thomas did that Christ is their Lord and their God This is another great Fortress of the Socinians from which they tell us in the Doctor 's Language That Articles of Faith above the apprehension of Reason are like the Ravings in Bedlam p. 56. c. 1. A cast of Tertullian's Montanism Credo quia impossibile and that excess of Confidence he means our Christian Faith in defect of Reason is a certain symptom of Madness To this Fortress as their Frontier Garison all the Socinians resort nothing can be believed which cannot be understood and comprehended by Reason So Schlinchtingius against Meisner It implies a Contradiction that what exceeds the reach of Reason should be made an Article of Faith As if when the God of Heaven revealing his Will doth injoyn any Commandment or requires the belief of any Proposition upon his Authority which the reason of his Creatures is not able to comprehend or demonstrate to itself he did enjoyn the belief of Contradictions As in our Author's instance when Abraham believed against Hope and against his Reason he believed on the Authority of God that required him to offer up his only Son Isaac And why may we not as well believe that God sent his Eternal Son to be Incarnate and come down from Heaven for our Redemption tho' we cannot comprehend it we ought to believe the thing tho' we cannot comprehend the manner Natural Faith relieth upon natural Reason but Divine Faith upon Revelation which may be above but not against Reason If you require any other Testimony it is not Faith Vides saith St. Augustine non est fides what thou assentest to because thou seest a reason for it is not Faith Faith is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 That properly is Faith which gives up its assent to a Proposition on the Testimony of him that propounds it and in this case we say with the Doctor Let God be true and Humane Reason a Lyar. Humane Reason hath the judgment of Discretion the judgment of Decision belongs to the Scriptures to the Scriptures I say not as understood by any private Interpretation but as interpreted by the Analogy of Faith by the Harmony of the Old and New Testament and by the general Consent of the best Teachers in all Ages and to this we shall Appeal for the Decision of this great Truth That our Saviour is the Eternal Son of God There are certainly more plain Contradictions in the Arian Doctrines in this viz. That there should be an Omnipotent and Omniscient God that created all things and knows the secrets of all hearts and that this should be a created God for the Arians grant Christ to be the Creator of the World That God should be reconciled to Man that by Transgression is his Enemy hating and hateful to God without any satisfaction to his Justice this is to reconcile Light and Darkness Heaven and Hell or that a Finite Creature as a Created God must be could satisfy an infinitely offended Justice Nor is there any Article of our Christian Faith that seems so contrary to Reason as is their measuring of an Infinite Essence by Finite Reason that which measureth should be able to contain the thing that is measured Again To give Divine Worship to a Creature by what Name soever it be dignified or distinguished which is due only to the Almighty God our Creator is contrary both to sound Reason and Scripture which the Socinians some of them at least do and on their own Principles are guilty of Idolatry The Difference among the Socinians concerning giving Divine Worship to Christ will save us the labour of proving them to be Idolaters if Christ be not the Eternal Son of God Socinus would not hold him for a Christian that would not worship Christ with Divine Worship But Christianus Frankin Francis David and some others who agreed with Socinus that Christ was but a Man urge this Argument to prove Socinus and his Followers to be Idolaters because they worshipped him whom they believed to be but a Creature The Argument is thus formed As great as is the distance between a Creator and a Creature so great ought the difference be of the Honour that is given to the Creator from that which is given to the Creature but the distance between the Creator and Creature is the greatest distance therefore there ought to be the greatest difference in the Honour that is given to the Creator from that which is given to a Creature Hence they conclude Socinus and his Followers who worshipped Christ with Divine Worship were Idolaters But to this they answer That if it be the pleasure of God to have it so so it must be and for this they quote St. John 5.23 That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father To this Franken replys That by Socinu 's own Doctrine the Scripture he says must not be believed because it is contrary to Reason and therefore there is some other hidden sence in that Scripture which must be searched out N. B. and Franken urgeth Deut. 6.13 repeated Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And it is farther urged that Crellius saith the word only in John 17.3 where Christ says This is life eternal to know thee the only true God that by it Christ excludes himself from being the true God And by the same word say his Adversaries Christ excludes himself from being the Object of Divine Worship This Franken confirms farther against Socinus from Isa 42.8 My glory will I not give to another Isai 48.11 and observe who speaks I am Jehovah that is my name and my glory c. What Glory is that Gloria Jehovitatis mea as Calomus's Phrase is that is The Glory of my Godhead So in Jer. 3.18 That men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah art the most High Jehovah then is the Name of the most high God and his alone so that it cannot be given to any other who is not the most high God but this name Jehovah is given to Christ in the Scripture therefore he is the most high God This Argument shall be confirmed hereafter In the mean time we have gained this Point viz. That if Christ be the Object of Divine Worship as the Socinians grant then must he be the Eternal Son of God of the same Essence with his Father and as St. Paul speaks God over all blessed for ever Now if the word only in St. John exclude Christ from being the true God then the same word in Deut. and St. Matthew exclude him from Divine Worship wherefore if his being the true God be against the Reason of Socinians though never so plain in Scripture we must search out some other hidden sence as Socinus says
the Jews only on whom they were imposed neither were they the Worship of God but an Introduction thereunto The true Worship of God which I call my Religion is the Decalogue which is the Eternal and Immutable Will of God which I call mine because it is given me by God not by a Voice from Heaven but ingrafted in my mind from the Creation and because this Ingraven Decalogue is much obscured by the Corruption of Humane Nature and wicked Customs I add a Vocal Decalogue to illustrate it which Vocal Decalogue doth therefore belong to me and to all Men because it agrees with the Ingraven Decalogue and is the same with it This is my Opinion concerning the Messias or the King promised and this is the Religion which I ingenuously profess to you Martyne Seidelius This is another Professor of Natural Religion Servetius was a Spaniard of Tarracon where he profest Physick and joyning the Study of Divinity he fell into the Error of the Antitrinitarians his Blasphemous Writings and Discourses whereby he laboured to seduce others caused him to leave his Country from whence he after he had wandred up and down came and setled at Geneva and there published his Blasphemous Heresies Beza says That he called the Trinity the Three Headed Cerberus Epist 1. And in the seven Books which he wrote concerning the Errors of the Trinity speaking of the Eternal Generation of the Son l. 1. he says That then the Father ought to have a Spiritual Wife or was an Harmophrodite both Father and Mother for the reason of the word permits not that any should be called a Father without a Mother His other Errors were That the Substance of God was mutable and was a part of the Universe He denied the Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost he affirmed the Mortality of the Soul and that Moses was a ridiculous Impostor and the Church of Israel a Heard of Swine He mentioned saith Calvin the Trinity to be a Devilish Phantasm and Satanical Illusion above and hundred times For these reasons he was imprisoned by the Magistrates of Geneva and that they might proceed judiciavily against him they consulted with the Helvetian Churches who all approved of their intended Proceedings and sentenced him to be Burnt which Sentence was accordingly executed on him in Geneva 1553. Bulling Melach and other great Divines approving of it while he was in Prison many Divines besides Calvin Farel perswaded him to Recant his Errors which he obstinately refused and after Sentence was past he grew more sullen refusing Converse and to joyn in Prayers with others And when he was to be executed called on the People in the Spanish mode Miserere but not at all on God or our Saviour Christ yet this Man as wicked as he was is accounted a Martyr Both living and dead was in great repute and esteem among the Socinians Theophilus Nicolai calls him his Brother and Servant of the Messiah What did not Michael Servetus that learned Man and stout Defender of the Faith suffer unjustly Ostorodus made an Apology for him so did Voidovius And Socinus himself says That he thought much more highly of Christ than the Mahometans did and in some things wrote against them And when he was brought to the Fire he would not acknowledge the Eternal Son of God but the Son of the Eternal God for which they esteemed him a Martyr This sort of Serpents have had their lurking Holes in this Nation and have attempted to poyson the People but hitherto have been prevented as soon as they began to peep abroad I know not what they might have done had they found a Man of such Learning and Confidence as our Author In the Reign of Queen Mary to the great Grief and Scandal of the Protestant Martyrs there were some that suffered for denying the Godhead of Christ in the Year 1579 one Hamant was burnt in Norwich for denying the Deity of Christ and in the Year 1588 one Kett suffered for the same Blasphemy In King James the First his Reign one Legate suffered for the same Heresie Sandius observes p. 430. that Queen Elizabeth complained with grief That such Monsters as the Arians were found in her Kingdom whereof he gives an account that some were executed in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James the First In the Year 1579 there was printed at London an Arian Book as Sandius p. 430. called The Articles of the Family of Love and how deservedly that Family was subverted for their debauched and extravagant Practices is sufficiently known In the late Troubles when all Sects and Heresies were permitted this Gangreen began to spread their attempts were on the weaker sort of People Anabaptists and Quakers many of whom were seduced by some such Leaders as Mr. Beedle and Pen And how far the Infection spread the Reader may see in Pagit's Hiresiology and in Edwards Gangrena where there is so much Filth as makes me forbear to rake it up The Socinians have often boasted that they could vie Authorities from the Fathers of the First three hundred Years who have said more as they falsly boast against the Trinity and the Eternal Essence and Consubstantiality of the Son then those which have asserted it but as yet they have not attempted it and Mr. Bull 's Collection hath wholly discouraged that Attempt it is true that some of those Ancients spake warily of those and other Mysteries and forbore to speak their own sence or discover the nature of them as it is evident they did industriously conceal the manner of administring the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper from not only the Jews and Heathens but the Catechumens also when therefore the publick Prayers were ended 〈◊〉 M 〈…〉 a est the Deacon pronounced a Departure to such as were not the Fideles who were not admitted to the Participation of the Eucharist which practice is generally observed in the Churches of Christ to this day This was called Disciplina Arcani and it was exercised in restraining all but the Fideles from Participation of the Eucharist and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity also as some suppose This Practice was grounded on the Words of our Saviour who also would not reveal his Deity to all sorts of Persons nor some of the Mysteries of the Gospel which he proposed in dark Parables only for a certain time the People being not able to bear them the words are Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs and cast not your pearls before swine which many of the Ancients understood of not exposing the more sacred Mysteries of the Gospel to such as had not received the more common Doctrines and were not admitted to the number of the Faithful to this purpose are quoted Tertullian Origine Cyprian Athanasius Gregory Nyssene and Nazianzen Basil Heirom Epiphanius both the Cirils Chrysostome Ambrose and Augustine I confess the Church of Rome would make advantage of this Discipline but learned Men have bard them I only
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
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
that place of this Author in his second Apology where he says The Christians are not Worshippers of many impure Gods but they worship the Father Son and Holy Ghost in reason and in truth Athenagoras a Philosopher and Christian in his Apology for the Christians to Antoninus saith Least any should think me ridiculous in saying that God hath a Son as the Poets who speak of Gods which were 〈◊〉 other than Men the Word or Reason of God is of the same Form and Efficacie with the Father for of him and by him all things were made and the Father and the Son are one the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father for the Word of the Father is the Son of God united together in Power Vertue and Substance but distinguished in Subsistence and Personality Tatianus a Disciple of Justin Martyr in his Oration against the Greeks says That Christ was begotten not by any abscission but by participation or communication because that which is cut off is separated from the Original but that which is communicated doth not diminish that which doth communicate as the light of one Torch is not diminished by communicating light to another so the Word going forth from the Power of the Father did not leave the Father destitute of the Word Clement Bishop of Alexandria the Disciple of Pantenus a Martyr and Master of Origen saith That the Word was and is the Divine Principle of all things which Word hath now appeared unto Men who alone is both God and Man In his Admonition to the Gentiles speaking on Titus 2.13 of the Great God he applies it to Christ who saith He teacheth us to live well that he may as God bestow eternal Life on us hereafter And then he perswades the Gentiles Believe O Man in him that was God and Man believe him that suffered and is worshipped the living God believe in him all ye Men who alone is the God of all Men. And there he tells them That he is most manifestly the true God equal with the God of the Universe the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son And in his Pedoag l. 1. calls him The Holy God Jesus Tertullian in his Apology against the Gentiles c. 21. speaking of Christ saith We affirm'd him to be begotten of God and therefore to be the Son of God by unity of substance for both are one Spirit as when a Beam is extended from the Sun the Sun is in the Beam because it is a Beam of the Sun the substance being not seperated but extended thus he is God of God as is Light of Light for whatsoever thus proceeds from God is God Prolatum a patre non separatum dispositione alium non divisione as Grotius on John 1. quotes him In his Book against Praxeas he saith That God alone was before all things but he was alone because there was nothing without him yet was he not alone because he had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason with him And Grotius on John 1. quotes Tatianus speaking to the same sence That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Tertullian calls him God of God and Light of Light the Son not separate from the Father of one undivided Substance le cont a Proxeam c. 4. teneo unam substantium in tribus coherentibus That the whole Trinity is of one Dignity and Power In c. 17. he ascribes all the Attributes of God the Father to the Son and chap 2. against Praxeas he says The name of the Father is the Almighty God the most High the God of Israel all these agree to the Son and on Christ's words I and my Father are one he shews that they are two whom he makes equal and joyns in one Theophilus Antiochenus writing to Autolocus l. 2. says That which is begotten of God is God Which he speaks of the Word alway existing in the heart of God Ireneus l. 3. c. 6. says That neither our Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would so distinctly and absolutely have called Christ God unless he had been the true God and if at any time it gives the name to them that are not Gods it is with some addition and signification to manifest that they are not true Gods And from Christ's words to the Pharisees concerning the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham c. he concludes That Christ with his Father is the God of the Living who spake to Moses and was manifested to the Father And he applies that of the Apostle to the Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose were the Father's and of whom was Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed for ever which Scripture is so expounded by most of the Fathers He proves also the Deity of Christ he says That Christ is the measure of the Father because he comprehends him And this he appropriates to our Saviour who only comprehends the Father and he excludes the whole Creation from knowing or apprehending the Father according to his Greatness L. 2. c. 43. he says Thou O Man were created and didst not alway exist with God as doth his own Word And l. 3. c. 8. he says Nothing can be compared with the Word of God by whom all things were made Caius an ancient Presbyter of whom Photius makes mention in these words That he taught expresly of the Deity of Christ our God and of his Ineffable Generation by the Father Hyppolitus a Martyr about the Year 220 speaking of Christ says He was the infinite God and also a Man that had perfectly the perfect substance of both and that his Divinity was the same after his Incarnation as before infinite incomprehensible impassible unalterable and in brief a substantial subsistence Origen whose most mature and perfect Work being that of his Dispute with Celsus written when he was about sixty Years old confirms the same Doctrine speaking of the wise Men that presented their Gifts to our Saviour says That they offered them to him that was God and Man Gold as to a King Mirrh as to a Mortal Man and Frankinsence as to GOD. And that Christ had something that was Divine under the Humane Nature which was properly the Son of God God the Word the Power and Wisdom of God We do not separate says he the Son of God from Jesus for both the Soul and Body of Jesus were strictly united with the Word of God and of the Body of Christ he says It was the Temple of God the Word St. Cyprian another Latine Father a Bishop of Africa and an eminent Martyr writing to Quirinus against the Jews mentioneth divers Scriptures to prove Christ to be God as Isa 45. Psal 46. and proves That Christ being God and Man became Mediator between us and his Father In his Epistle to Cecilian speaking of Christ saith He is the Power Reason and Wisdom of God he descended into the Virgin and was God mixt with Man he is our God our Christ And to name no
one Substance the one as a Fountain the other as a Stream flowing from him or as the Beams from the Sun which are not separated These many and plain Evidences of the Belief of the Ancient Fathers before the Council of Nice do evidently declare what sure footing they had for their Faith viz. the unanimous Consent of Apostolical Men Martyrs and Confessors who maintained that the Son of God was of the same Divine Nature and Substance with his Father consonant to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture and consequently they also shew how rashly and inconsiderately the Doctor says p. 37. c. 1. That we have no firm ground to go upon that this Doctrine was first advanced by a Novice Emperor upon implicite Faith in two Bishops P. 38. c. 2. That it hath no foundation in Scripture Antiquity or Councils and that the Athanasian may be numbred among the Popish and Arian Doctrines which we know to be contradictory in the case of the Trinity And if in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every truth should be established how much more should this Truth be received as unquestionable being confirmed by the Harmony of the Old and New Testament by the Notions of the Apostolical Writers in the Primitive Times and by their Successors home to the Nicene Council who all delivered it not as their own Faith but as the Faith of their Predecessors home to the Apostles days And as for Councils the Synods that were before the Council of Nice and all since except a few under some Emperors deluded by the Sophistry of the Arians and circumvented by their Hypocrisie and Falshood have been constantly of the same Judgment with that of Nice Concerning the Eternal Generation of Christ there is a plain sence of the Anti-Nicene Fathers that will answer all the Objections made by the Arians against that Eternal Generation of Christ and their Opinions that he was only the first begotten of the Creatures being himself made in order to the making of the World for they assert That the Word did alway exist with his Father but there was a prolation emission or application of the Son ad exteriora the Father in order to the Creation and this is by some metaphorically called a Generation not as if he then had a beginning for God as Athenagoras says who is an Eternal Mind had in himself his Eternal Word from Eternity though the Energy or Operation of that Word appeard first in the Creation in which sence be calls the Word the first begotten But such says he as was not made but by whom all things were made This one Distinction of the Word or Son of God being Co-eternal with the Father and his Emission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Progression for the manifestation of his Father and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Creation of the World if duly considered as delivered by the Fathers before the Nicene Council will confute all the Councils of the Arians and Socinians against those parallel places of Scripture and particularly against such as speak of the Primogeniture of our Saviour as if he were a Deus Factus or a Creature Having shewed the Authority of Scripture and the Fathers to be against the Arian and Socinian Doctrines there is no necessity of urging that of Councils which they peremptorily decline so Sandius in his Preface to the Reader Ask for the old Paths saith he not of Synods nor of Councils nor the Books of Creeds which later Ages have set forth He was conscious that these would be generally against him except a few that were manged by Arian Emperors so that we have their consent to let these be silent for fear of their Anathema's It is observed that in all Lands where any venemous Creatures are bred there may be found some others that serve as an Antidote to that Venome and sometimes in that very Creature where the Poyson is lodged there is a Medicine to expel it as in the Viper the same Divine Providence hath in all Ages so ordered it that whatever Heresies have been conceived by erroneous Persons have been stifled in their birth by such as God hath raised up for the suppression of them An instance whereof we have in this Heretical Treatise which as it was brought to light by a Rector of Exeter-Colledge so by another Rector of the same Colledge it was provided long before to condemn it to perpetual Darkness and I may truly say it was Damnata prius quam nata condemned to dye before it was born And if the Antidote prepared by the One be duly applied the Dose of Poyson is not of so quick an operation but by the Blessing of God the ill effects of it may be prevented I have therefore for the benefit of ignorant and wavering Persons translated that Learned Lecture of the Reverend Dr. Prideaux the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxford and Rector of Exeter Colledge in the Year 1633. which begins p. 276. of his Lectures in Folio the Text which he chose to insist on is Matth. xvi v. 16. Simon Peter answered and said Thou art Christ the Son of the living GOD. THis celebrated Testimony concerning our Saviour is recommended to us by these four Particulars First That it was not Sudden but Deliberate Secondly It was not Private but spoken in the Name of all the Apostles Thirdly That it was not casually uttered but after a double Demand of Christ To which add Fourthly The Approbation of Christ and the Reward of St. Peter that published this Testimony Now the Scripture is not wont to propose trivial things with so great solemnity there is therefore something more in the matter than at first appears in the words of this Answer from whence both the Ancient and Moderns with clear and often confirmed assent have believed and asserted not only the Humanity of Christ which he took of the Seed of Abraham but also the Divinity of the Son of the Living God by ineffable Generation communicated to him by the Father from Eternity But that which St. Peter foretold That false Teachers shall be among you which will bring in damnable Heresies denying the Lord that bought them 1 Pet. 2.8 Rom. 9.17 Rom. 9.22 to which they were afore ordain'd saith St. Peter raised up saith St. Paul fitted and prepared that same the nauseousness of these times have vomited into the bosom of the Church Faction doth cherish Industry defends Sagacity promotes Wit urgeth Hypocrisie publisheth under the Veil of Sincerity So that unless such as Timothy carefully take heed to themselves and their depositum and such as St. Jude contend for the Faith once delivered there is great danger lest the Unclean Spirit that was cast forth by the Reformation return to the House that is swept and cleansed with a more numerous Train and the last State of the Church become worse than the former 2 S. Now among those Seven unclean Spirits that create trouble to the Church swept and garnished
This imaginary Substance was either Animate or Manimate if Animate it constituted an Embrio distinct from the Seed of the Virgin if it was Inanimate and received a Soul by Traduction from the Virgins as our Adversaries teach then he was the Son of the Virgin only and in no way the Son of the Living God which destroys this Socinian Figment To this Confession of St. Peter we add that of St. Thomas where having toucht Christ he crys out My Lord and my God Joh. ◠◠now these Titles conjunctly are never given to any but the Supreme God as it appears Deut. 6.3 Matth. 4.10 and in many other places Francis David as the Nestorians were wont to do as appears by the fifth Synod c. 12. says That this Exclamation was not of one admiring or affirming as if Thomas on the evidence of the Resurrection had thus said O Lord my God what is it that I see what is it that I feel with my hands as if he spake not to Christ but God But the Text confutes this for our Saviour bids him reach forth his hands and feel my hands and Thomas answered and said But to whom did he answer and say was it not to Christ who talked with him Socinus against Weike says he acknowledged Christ to be his God not the most high God but he owned him to be such a God whom he ought to worship and believe in Did Thomas feign to himself a peculiar and subordinate God whom he did not believe to be the God of Israel and the most high God without doubt he now believed that which before on the relation of the Disciples he doubted of as incredible but he alway believed the God of Israel to be his God therefore when he affirmeth this of Christ being revived to whom he would not have given such a Title before he did attribute to Christ what was to be attributed to the most high God and hereby the Eternity of Christ's Divinity is manifestly proved Which 3ly the profession of our Saviour himself doth assert I am Alpha and Omega saith the Lord which is which was and is to come Revel 1.8 The Lord God which is which was and which is to come as the Complutenses the Kings Syriack Arabick and Vulgar Translations read but he that is such must necessarily be the most high God Engedinus and Volkelius answer That these are not the words of Christ but of that God which in the first Verse is manifestly distinguished from Christ Ribera and A. Lapide agree in this but contrarily he speaks here who professeth himself to be the First and the Last v. 17. and in ch 2. v. 8. and ch 22. v. 13. But he affirms that he was dead and now lives for ever Ch. 1.18 and is to come to Judgement Ch. the last v. 13. therefore it must necessarily be understood of Christ Thus the Ancients Athanasius Nazianzen Ruffinus Idacius Clarus understood it as also the Jesuits Althasar and Alapide who forgat himself or on second thoughts corrected himself on the last ch v. 13. where he adds this out of St. Ambrose That the ancient Christians when Arianism prevailed were wont to ingrave Α and Ω on their Tombs to shew their detestation of that Heresie and that they died in the Faith of him that professed himself to be the Α and Ω that is the true and eternal God as the Father is 2ly We argue from three Apostolical Testimonies the first is that of St. John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and that Word was God What is more clear All agree that the Word is Christ who being from the beginning with God viz. the Father before the Creation it necessarily followeth which is expresly affirmed that that Word was God Which 2ly is farther confirmed All things were made by him therefore the Word was not made or created as St. Augustine disputeth 3ly The World in which he was and which knew him not was made by him therefore he was the Creator of all things visible and invisible Col. 1.16 Heb. 1.2 Moreover the Word was made Flesh when he took the Seed of Abraham And all the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in God manifested in the flesh Col. 2.9 Therefore the Word was before the Incarnation and before the Seed which he assumed and therefore more ancient than his Mother but not as a pre-existent Creature as the Arians confess against our Adversaries Therefore as he was the Eternal God it is worth our time to consider with what wonderous Wrestings the Transilvanians do stretch these so plain and evident Testimonies expounded and set in the light by the Ancients but obscured by the Socinians especially by Smalcius in ten Homelies on this Text the sum of which is this That the word Beginning doth not note the beginning of the World but of the Gospel not the first Creation of all things but only the Reparation and Reformation by Christ As if the Evangelist had only said according to Smalcius his Paraphrase 1. In the beginning i. e. of publishing the Gospel 2. was the Word viz. Christ this is right 3. And that Word was with God i. e. was hid and known only to God or obscurely known to some that were near 4. And God was the Word or rather by force of the Article pointing at the subject the Word was God i. e. Man so instructed with Divine Gifts and Vertue that he was deservedly worshipped as God for afterward when he appeared publickly all things were made by him not simply all things but such only as concerned the Ministry of the Gospel these things were made that is reformed re-created and intirely restored And without him was nothing made i. e. without his Command his Conduct and Authority and the Word was made Flesh that is subjected himself to the Miseries and Suffering of Flesh These things if I am not deceived will appear to wise Men not new only but vain and prophane and we may justly cry out to Socinus in the words of Neimotevius to George Schomannus I beseech thee in the name of God my Brother George that you would judge in the fear of God how Humane Reason playeth the Wanton in things Divine and how dangerous it is to be over-wise and not to be wise according to Sobriety For if this be the genuine sence of this Text and if this beloved Disciple of his Lord meant nothing else than that his Lord in the beginning of publishing the Gospel did lay hid for a time unknown to the World and permitted the Baptist to forerun and prepare his way and that he came afterward and restored and perfected all things necessary for the Salvation of the Church and subjected himself to the miseries of the Flesh if this be all that the last of the Evangelist and the Apocalipist's hath revealed from the bosom of his Lord he might it seems have spared his labour without any great damage to the Truth for all
these things were clearly and more at large treated of by the preceding three Evangelists And I would willingly learn from these quick-sighted Innovators how it can agree with the gravity simplicity and fidelity of an Apostle to promise a History and propose Riddles and so to involve and cloath the Matters proposed with such mistical words as might rather send away the Hearer with Astonishment than Instruction to invite to Secrets when he only offers things obvious which cannot satisfie expectation and which might better expedite the thing in fewer words as it was done by others Lastly Let all wise Men judge that are not partial how well these Photinian Glosses do clear the Text which says In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God The Gloss says Not in the beginning but before the beginning of publishing the Gospel Christ was hid known only in secret to God Which Fiction Martyn Cherovicius a Confident of that Party could not digest 2ly It follows in the Text And that Word was God The Gloss says He was but a made God he might have said a feign'd God 3ly The Text says All things were made by him The Gloss says Not all things but the things concerning the Gospel only were not made but reformed by him The Text says The World was made by him The Gloss says Not the World which we see but which we expect The Text says The Word was made Flesh The Gloss says The Word was not made Flesh but only subjected to the Miseries of the Flesh Do not these seem to you that hear them ingenious Glosses which so limit the Text as to eliminate them Let us now weigh the second place Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever The Apostle doth here distinguish of Christ as considered according to the Flesh and so he descended from Jewish Ancestors or as he is the Son of God and so he is God over all blessed for ever What need was there of this restriction according to the Flesh if Christ were only a meer Man They answer with Erasmus that perhaps the word God was not in the Text being omitted by St. Cyprian and Hilary but Erasmus notes that this might be omitted by the Carelesness of the Transcribers for Athanasius mentions it against the Arians Ambrose and Theophylact confirm it and Pamelius testifies that it was in the most ancient Manuscripts the Socinians have it in their German Translation as it is reported and Socinus himself doth not deny but if that word were wanting it is supplied by what follows blessed over all Therefore 2ly they flye to the pointing of the words and read the words thus Of whom is Christ according to the flesh over all here they make a Full-point and then as a Doxology they read thus adding the word sit Let God be blessed for ever So that Christ is not here stiled God but God who sent Christ is praised and thus indeed the German Translation of the Socinians is pointed Ans Matthias Glirius as Socinus on Aristole's Elenchs relates undertook to prove from 1 John 2.22 that Jesus was not the Christ but by what Artifice to wit by thus wresting the Text Who is a lyar says he but he that denieth here he placeth a note of Interrogation then he proceeds and reads thetically because Jesus is not Christ. But Socinus explodes him as a wicked Man let them therefore look to it who imitate him in the same Cause how they may avoid the same Condemnation The third place we urge from Philip. 2.6 Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but emptied himself taking the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man Here we have a manifest difference between the form of God and the form of a Servant and these most certain Propositions 1. That both these Forms were united in the Person of Christ 2. That by reason of the first he was equal to God and by reason of the later he was like unto Men. 3. That the first Form did assume the later by emptying himself so that his Divinity Equality with his Father Incarnation Hypostatical Union and Theanthropy which are severally spoken of in other places are here found joyned The Transilvanians with Maximinus the Arian in St. Augustine answer That the words of the Apostle are to be read thus Not thinking that rapine should be made so as to equal himself with God for so he should be injurious to God therefore that he might not do this he emptied himself i. e. he chose rather to be a Servant than an Invador of undue Dignity Ans It is a most filthy addition of the word made the Text says only he thought it no Robbery to be equal or as Tertullian says Pariari or be compared with God where it is expressed what Christ did not what he deliberated to do Socinus replies by retorting the Argument Christ is equal to God and hath the form of God therefore he is not that God Ans Yea therefore he is that God for to whom the form agreeth the thing formed agreeth also and nothing can be equal to God but God But the word Form he says doth not here denote an essential but accidental Form only nor can it consist with God so to humble himself Ans The Form of God here is to be taken in the same sence as the Form of a Servant because there is the same reason of things opposed but this of a Servant was true and essential and why not the other So that to be in the form of God is nothing less than to be the true God who lost nothing by humbling himself but by assuming what he had not before conferred many things to the Nature which he assumed And all the Authority and Majesty which was added to the Son was not added to him as God but as he was the Son of Man John 5.27 Our third Argument is drawn from the Harmony of the Old and New Testament in which those things which in the Old Testament are attributed to the only true God of Israel are in the New expounded of Christ Out of eleven Instances that have been mentioned three only shall suffice the first is Numb 21.5 The people spake against God and against Moses The Apostle in 1 Cor. 10.9 expounds this of Christ Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of Serpents Socinus objects 1. That by Eloim in the Old Testament God is not necessarily understood but frequently an Angel and by Christ in that place our Saviour is not necessarily understood but Moses 2. It may be said that the Israelites tempted Christ in the Wilderness not in his own Person which then was not but in Moses his Type Ans But Eloim which is here put absolutely in the six and seven Verses following is expresly called Jehovah which agrees
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
itself but the Divine Nature assuming did confer And thus you have as time gave leave in one View the chief Points of this large and intricate Controversie To God the Father to the Son God and Man and to the Holy Ghost be all Honour Praise and Glory now and for ever Amen The CONCLUSION St. Hilary having vindicated the Doctrine of the Trinity l. 6. n. 2. says Lord I believed thy words if I am deceived Moses David Solomon and thy Apostles have deceived me if it be a Fault to believe these pardon me Almighty God for in this belief I can die deny it I cannot We have been baptized in this Faith we have offered up all our Prayers in this Faith and payed all our Thanksgivings to the Blessed Trinity and therefore we cannot dye comfortably in any other And with much more confidence may the Devout Trinitarian say as St. Heirome expresseth it Ecce Crucifixus meus Deus Behold my God which was crucified for me when he sees him coming in Judgment than the Arian or Socinian who proudly deny his Godhead and Satisfaction who may too late complain in the words of St. Augustine in his Confession l. 5. c. 9. I was going towards Hell laden with all my Sins while I believed not that Christ had satisfied for them FINIS ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Naked Gospel As now Published By ARTHVR BVRY D. D. THat this Book is now first published by the Doctor whose Name is prefixed cannot in Justice be denied by them that have read the former for it is quite another Book and it may be true though either one or the other if not both of the former Editions of the Naked Gospel were published by the same Author because they are not the same Books yet the one which he having caused to be printed and dispersed among his Friends in several parts of the Nation and the other wherein he made several Alterations may be affirmed to be published by the same hand the truth whereof needs no farther enquiry after the Oxford Animadversions That this present Copy is another Book appears by its divers Alterations and Additions which are made whether for the better or the worse will appear to every judicious Reader and that there needs no other or severer Reflections on it than what the Author himself hath made He seems so to tumble in the Net which he hath woven as to be more intangled by striving to get out In his Preface to the Reader he confesseth He had not patience to be silent at such a time when the suppression of such Opinions as he hath published would have been greatly advantagious both to Truth and Peace And whether it would not have been a great degree of sauciness by a point blanck Address of such a Present as the Naked Gospel to direct the Venerable Body of the Convocation of the Clergy in what they had to do is put beyond doubt by the Oxford Convocation I cannot find as he says that it was intended that the Convocation of the Clergy was called to make Alterations in Matters of Faith nor that we are to weigh at the same Beam a Rite in the one and a Doctrine in the other Seale The Convocation I believe would have given up all their Rites and Ceremonies rather than the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which the Doctor on pretence of Charity would have them to abandon He confesseth That his Book was penned with less caution than was necessary for what was to be exposed to every vulgar eye But how could he imagine that so many learned and good Men would be pleased with his questioning or denying the truth and belief of such Doctrines as they themselves believe to be necessary to Salvation He might therefore very well have spared his unbecoming Reflections on that Body That the Doctor was suspected to disbelieve the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation was not because he did not expresly declare his Opinion concerning them which a true Son of the Church of England and one that had been long before suspected as Heterodox writing on that subject was highly concern'd to do but because he hath slily and frequently insinuated divers Arguments against them and his daubing with untempered Mortar in his two new Chapters of the Trinity and Incarnation will render the matter more obscure and defaced As for those words in the conclusion which he conceives some are most offended with wherein he cannot submit to the least compliance Let him enjoy his own Sentiments only I cannot perswade my self that more than his an hundred years experience calls on us to tack about and steer a contrary course to what our Pilots in the greatest part of that time have steered As the number of those Men who are as sick of King William as they were lately of King James is so small that they may be all written in a Ring If he intends as the current of his Discourse would carry it such as were in the late Convocation all which had testified by solemn Oaths and divers of them by their learned Arguments and Exhortations their cheerful Obedience to their present Majesties whom God preserve as the most hopeful Defenders of our established Religion so I heartily pray there may not be one such Prevaricator left among us though even among the Twelve Disciples of our Saviour there was a Judas and I hope there is not one of a thousand among our Clergy that is so ill as the Doctor would represent them such I mean as he says would wish for the cruel French to deliver them from the present Government or that is so unreasonably jealous as to think that his present Majesty designs to make this Church not unlike to that in which himself was educated for which his vile suggestion contrary to His Majesties most gracious Assurances the Doctor is concern'd to beg His Majesty's Pardon and I pray God to pardon him also It is a most invidious and malicious Quere which he adds Which of the two are the truer Church of England-men those who dread the return of King James with his Jesuits or those who wish and labour for it Those who are so stiff as rather to hazard the whole than to part with the least circumstance And cover their stiffness to their own humours and interests with the specious pretence of zeal for the Church To which I answer That as I do not know so if I did know any person so ill affected I should abhor them as the Pests of the Nation To those of the Doctor I shall oppose these Queries Which are the truer Church of England men those who dread the growth and success of the Arian and Socinian Heresies or those who adhere to the established Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation of our blessed Saviour Those who would erect a Natural Religion a Jewish or Turkish Faith on the Ruines of that which is truly Christian Ancient and Catholick or those who live in the Communion
I hope he will make his Notion more intelligible how a Thought which he calls the first-begotten Son of God may also be called the only begotten Son of God And how a Thought or Word mental or declared could intimately vitally and perfectly unite itself to a divinely begotten Child which whatever he says to the contrary is much more obscure than what the Scripture and the Church of England have said When he says p. 54. He can see no great reason why Socinus who contended for the Worship of Christ should also contend against his Eternity I should think he means he sees no reason for it at all and seeing he hath so much Charity for those that altogether deny our Saviour's Deity and dare not worship or invoke him at all as not to deny them the Name of Christians or hope of Salvation I beseech him to extend a more affectionate and real love and good will to all such as heartily profess to believe the one and sincerely devote themselves to the practice of the other But this seeming Reproof of Socinus for his Opinion concerning the Divinity of Christ is no more than that for which David Franken and others that agreed with Socinus to deny his eternal Deity did more severely reprimand him for viz. for worshipping him whom he affirmed to be but a Creature contrary to the Scripture To confute and silence this new Notion of the Doctor and to shew how much more intelligible and rational the Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God as professed in the Church of England is I shall inform the Reader of that demonstrative Explanation of it which the learned Dr. Pearson Bishop of Chester hath elaborated Dr. Pearson on the Creed p. 267. Printed 1659. The third assertion to be demonstrated is That the Divine Essence which Christ had as the Word before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary he had not of himself but by communication from God the Father for this can not be denied That there can be but one Essence properly Divine and so but one God of infinite Wisdom Power and Majesty that there can be but one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being because a Plurality of more Persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ who is certainly not the Father cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine Nature originally of himself and consequently being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the Eternal God he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him from the Father All things whatever the Father hath are mine saith Christ John 16.15 Because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead and more than that the Father cannot have p. 269. Being the Divine Nature as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal is also indivisible Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated to him but the whole by which he must be acknowledged co-essential of the same Substance with the Father as the Council of Nice determined and the Fathers before them taught Hence Christ says I and the Father are one Joh. 10.30 which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him and though Christ saith The Father is in me and I in him yet withal he saith I came out from the Father by the former shewing the Divinity of his Essence by the later the Origination of himself We must not look on the Divine Nature as sterile but rather acknowledge and admire the secundity and communicability of itself upon which the Creation of the World dependeth God making all things by his Word to whom he first communicated that Omnipotency which is the cause of all things The fourth assertion followeth which is That the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father is the Generation of the Son and Christ who was eternally God not of himself but from the Father is the Eternal Son of God That God alway had a Son appears by Agur's Question Who hath established all the ends of the Earth What is his Name And what is his Son's Name if thou canst tell And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour wherefore he frequently inculcates that Blasphemy in his Alchoran that God hath no such Son nor any equal with him and his Disciples have corrupted the Psalm of David Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee into Thou art my Prophet I have educated thee But by the consent of the ancient Jews and the interpretation of the blessed Apostles we know these words belong to Christ and in the most proper sense to him alone Now that the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father was the true and proper Generation by which he hath begotten the Son will thus appear because the most proper Generation which we know is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same Nature with a full representation of him from whom he is produced Thus Man begetteth a Son that is produceth another Man of the same humane Nature with himself and this production as a perfect Generation becomes the foundation of the relation of Paternity in him that produceth and of Filiation in him that is produced This is the known Confession of all Men That a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the same Nature with him The similitude in which the Propriety of Generation is preserved is that which consists in identity of Nature and this communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude from whence Christ is called The Image of God the brightness of his Glory the express Image of his Person Then he proceeds to shew That this communication of the Divine Essence is a more proper Generation than any Generation of the Creatures not only because it is in a more perfect manner but also because the identity of Nature is most perfect As in the Divine Essence we acknowledge all the Perfections of the Creature substracting all the Imperfections which adhere to them in things below so in communication we must look upon the reality without any kind of defect blemish or impurity In humane Generation the Son is begotten in the same Nature with the Father which is performed by derivation or decision of part of the Substance of the Parent but this decision includeth imperfection because it supposeth the Substance divisible and consequently corporeal whereas the Essence of God is incorporeal spiritual and indivisible and therefore his Nature is really communicated not by derivation or decision but by a total and plenary communication In natural Generation the Father necessarily precedeth the Son and begets one younger than himself for seeing Generation is for the perpetuity of the Species where the individuals successively fail it is sufficient if the
Father can produce another to live after him and continue the existence of his Nature when his Person is dissolved but this supposeth the imperfection of Mortality wholly to be removed when we speak of Him who inhabiteth Eternity the Essence which God alway had without beginning without beginning he did communicate being alway Father as alway God Animals when they come to perfection of Nature then become prolifical in God eternal Perfection shews his eternal Fecundity And that which is most remarkable in Humane Generations the Son is of the same nature with the Father and yet is not the same Man because though he have an Essence of the same kind yet he hath not the same Essence the power of Generation depending on the first prolifical benediction increase and multiply it must be made by way of Multiplication and thus every Son becomes another Man but the Divine Essence being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division and in respect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication is so communicated as not to be multiplied insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same Nature but is the same God the Father God and the Word God Abraham Man and Isaac Man but Abraham one Man Isaac another Man not so the Father one God and the Son another God but the Father and the Word both the same God Being then the propriety of Generation is founded in the essential Similitude of the Son to the Father by reason of the same Nature which he receiveth from him being the full perfect Nature of God is communicated to the Word and that more intimately and with a greater Unity and Identity than can be found in Humane Generations it follows that this communication of the Divine Nature is the proper Generation by which Christ is and is called the true and proper Son of God this was the foundation of St. Peter's Confession Thou art Christ the Son of the living God This the ground of our Saviour's distinction I go to my Father and to your Father Hence did St. John raise a Verity more than only a Negation of Falsity when he said We are in the true Son for we which are in him are true not false sons but such sons we are not as the true Son Hence did St. Paul draw an Argument of the infinite Love of God towards Man in that he spared not his own proper Son Multum distat inter dominationem conditionem inter generationem adoptionem inter substantiam gratiam ideoque non hic permixte nec passim dicitur ascendo ad patrem nostrum aut deum nostrum sed ad patrem meum patrem vestrum ad deum meum ad deum vestrum Aliter enim deus illi pater est aliter nobis illum siquidem natura coaequat misericordia humiliat nos vero natura prosternat misericordia erigit Capreolus Carthag Epist Thus saith this Incomparable Author we have sufficiently shewed that the eternal Communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word was the proper Generation by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God which was our fourth Assertion And now I may hope that the Doctor will be as big as his word not to rise up any more against the Doctrine and Authority of the Church whereof he stiles himself a true Son and in which he acknowledgeth a Power to impose Silence though not Faith To the Readers p. 7. FINIS ERRATA PAge 20. l. ult read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. after ground of add denying p. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 16. for contra r. colta and l. 21. for nosce nosse p. 38. l. 15. for left r. best known p. 49. l. add is to the word Religion p. 56. l. 3. r. apposite and l. 20. profecit p. 57. l. 16. dele est and l. ult for which r. what p. 61. l. 16. Anomaeus i. e. p. 65. l. 11. for Eastern r. Western p. 66. l. 4. for Valence r. Valens p. 69. l. 3. r. sentiâ—e de fillo p. 70. l. 4. dele either Imperial or p. 80. l. 6. r. prosecute p. 84. l. 27. r. deterted for detected p. 87. l. 33. by commodious Interpretations p. 95. l. 13. after Doctrines add Than p. 96. l. 20. Calonius p. 106. l. penult add is before Christ. p. 119. l. 1. Prateolus p. 13â— l. 14. add by before the word Father p. 154. l. 36. r. eternal for external