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
answered Our Doctor mentions it for another reason viz. how any Church dare challenge or any Man dares pay that Faith to any yea all the Creatures in Heaven and Earth which is due to God only And on the Socinian and Arian supposition that Christ is a Creature there is no more Faith or Obedience due to him than to other Messengers of God but we must seek for Salvation by a Natural Religion and then blind as we are by Nature and having but blind Guides we may soon fall into the Ditch For the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit flesh and bloud cannot reveal them nor can any man say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost That this seems to be the Socinian sence of the Author is probable from the following words Those who require implicit Faith on any other authority so as to contradict reason give God the lye making him contradict himself for Reason is no less the word of God than is the Scripture So that if the Doctrines of the Gospel contradict the Reason of Arians and Socinians they are not to be received for therefore only are we to believe the Scripture because we are by plain Reason convinced that it is the Word of God But what if some Socinians be tainted with Quakerism and their Reason tells them the Gospel is not the Word of God but that Word is written in their Hearts and the Light within them is the only Word of God and not the Word incarnate or that which is written with Pen and Inke that is in our Doctor 's Opinion the Natural Religion for though the evidence we have that what is offered us for the Word of God is really such to this we must pay neither more nor less belief than Reason will prove due p. 18. col 2. P. 19. c. 2. The Doctor speaking of Belief says thus The same Natural Religion which claimed it as due to God forbad to pay it to any Creature upon the former account there was no need of an express Precept and upon the later there was the greatest need not only of an express Command but such repeated Importunities as might out voice both Reason when it should decry such a Command and Interest when it should rebel against convinced Reason both whereof concurred against the belief which our Lord required The sence of this Paragraph seems to be this That as the Faith which Natural Religion claims as due to God needed no express Precept so Natural Religion forbidding to pay Faith to any Creature there was the greatest need not only of an express Command but repeated Importunities to pay it to Christ such as might out-voice both Reason and Interest seeing they both concurred against the belief which our Lord required I wish the Doctor would give a more rational inference from these words then this that both Natural Religion Reason and Interest do forbid to pay Faith to Christ as forbidding to pay it to a Creature for he saith they concur against the belief which our Lord required If the Doctor by implicit Faith means more particularly a readiness to believe as Articles of Faith and as necessary to Salvation whatever Propositions are imposed on him by his Superiors he well knows we have no such Custom in the Church of England we call no Man on Earth our Master or Law-giver in Matters of Faith He that advanceth his own Reason which is often against and then it must be above Scripture he is in as bad a condition as the most bigotted Papist for he makes himself and all his Faculties and Reasonings as Infallible as they believe the Pope to be Chap. 5. The Contents of this Chapter is thus express'd Why Faith under the Gospel maketh a greater figure than under the Law This state of the Question he presently alters and makes it his business to shew That when our Saviour first claimed the publick profession of Faith in him there were extraordinary reasons for his Importunity and Promises some whereof in these days when the Christian Religion hath been long established have lost their influence and by consequence the importunity of those Precepts and the influence of those Promises do now cease These extraordinary Reasons viz. for professing Faith in Christ he draws from 1. The Difficulty and 2. the Danger of professing Faith in Christ and 3. the Necessity of it All which are readily granted viz. That though it were both difficult and dangerous yet it was necessary that the Disciples of Christ should publickly own Faith in him but then the Inference which he makes is not conclusive p. 23. col 1. viz. Now that our Education makes it as difficult and our Laws as dangerous to deny Christ as it was then to confess him and consequently what extraordinary merit Faith might draw from those Topicks must now be lowered and so Faith will appear a common Grace worthy of no greater than common rewards Is false for as he confesseth though in extraordinary respects that necessity be now abated yet there is a permament necessity from the influence which Faith alway hath on the action of Believers because as he says The Christian is alway a Souldier and must fight against all kinds of Enemies to Christ's Kingdom not only Flesh and Bloud but spiritual Wickedness and whatever would not have the Lord rule over them He must follow the Captain of his Salvation who was made perfect by Sufferings and when tempted he must walk in the steps of his Father Abraham sacrifice his Lusts though no less dear than was his Isaac So that Faith must be habitually the same and therefore needs the same encouragements now as it did when it was first required And I see no great need of that which he so carefully requires that we must distinguish the times for we are still under those later times which St. Paul calls perillous wherein we shall meet with divers Tryals and Temptation and therefore need the whole Armor of God c. And we still need the same degrees of Faith to overcome the World i. e. The lust of the Flesh the lust of the Eyes and the pride of Life To this great Work he says Christ came furnished with no other power but of working Miracles but the Scripture tells us of other powers for St. John says Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ He had the power to confer Grace to give Repentance and Remission of Sins to give Faith and to increase it to open the eyes of their Understandings and turn them from Darkness unto Light and from the power of Satan to God without which powers that of working Miracles was insufficient for we read of many that wrought Miracles in Christ's name and yet had no saving Faith and a Heathen may have a Natural Faith and Moral Vertues and yet come short of Salvation He adds in the conclusion of this Chapter That if we believe him i. e. Christ to require Faith for any other
Conclusion he deserves to be shaken into the Fire again for the impotent Creature doth not only hiss at the mistaken Author of Nolumus leges Angliae mutari but on the whole Convocation for their stiffness to their Constitutions whose very Authors says he in the Conclusion were they now living and true to their own reason must be willing to abolish them This is the Doctor 's enlarged Charity to the deceased Compilers of our Liturgy that they would have done as he desireth i. e. removing the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the Litany Doxology and I know not what Constitutions besides the Institutions of our Saviour to wit the two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist the ends whereof this Doctor with the Socinians doth utterly destroy and retains them only as Rites and Badges of an outward Profession of a Naked Gospel But let us enquire wherein this enlarged Charity of the Doctor 's doth consist Charity is either the love of God or of our Neighbours Now first our love to God ought to bear proportion with the love he hath bestowed on us of which the Apostle Joh. 3.16 saith God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Ver. 17. That the world by him might be saved The World then without Christ was in a lost and perishing condition God had for Sin shut them up under a sentence of Condemnation and it was his infinite Goodness and Wisdom to contrive the Means of our Salvation such as might reconcile us to himself to which end he thought this the fittest to send his only begotten Son into the World to dye for our sins the just for the unjust making him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him of this love the Apostle with admiration says Behold what manner of love the Father hath shewn to us c. If God had only sent a Prophet a Man of God to make a fuller Declaration of his Will this had not been a reason of so great Admiration but when he sent his only begotten Son that was one with the Father and laid help on him that was mighty able to save us to the utmost being God and Man this deserves the Sic So and the Ecce Behold and our admiration What manner of Love had he been the Son of God only by a miraculous Conception which freed him from Original Corruption had he only lived a Holy Life and left us a good Example had he only died to confirm the truth of his Doctrine as the Socinians say the Birth of St. John Baptist his austere Life and Death might come near to all this The Gift therefore here spoken of must be such as became the Infinite Goodness of God such as might reconcile his Love to us with his Love to his Justice such as might be sufficient to satisfie for the Sins of all that should believe in his Son and obey the Commands of God by him Which now is the greater Obligation of our Love to God to believe as I have said the Socinians do or as the Catholicks That God sent his only Begotten i. e. his Eternal Son the Wonderful the Mighty GOD to satisfie for our Sins to instruct us in all things that concern the Glory of God and our own Salvation to hear our Prayers and relieve all our Necessities to sanctifie our Souls and make us Partakers of the Divine Nature by the operation of the Spirit of Grace This is Love and this the Gift that God bestowed on us through his Infinite Love and in some proportion we ought so to love God as he first loved us And to think of and esteem of this Gift less than what the Scripture hath valued it at is not rightly to apprehend his Love or our infinite Obligations to make suitable Returns 2. As to our Love to Christ if he were only a Man that taught us the Will of God so did the Apostles if he died only to confirm his Doctrine and give us an Example of Constancy and Patience so have many Martyrs done But Rom. 5.7 8. God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us and had he only died for us and not been able to rise again and to take up his life as well as to lay it down had he not destroyed all the Enemies of our Salvation and ascended to Heaven having all Power committed to him we might argue as the Apostle doth If Christ be not risen and if he be not the Eternal Son of God to make Intercession for us and to send the Holy Ghost to sanctifie us then is our Preaching vain and our Faith is vain and we are yet in our Sins but now we may sing ouâ— Epinicion over all our Enemies The stâ—ng of Death is sin and the strength of Sin is the Law but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.56 57. Then for his Love to the Holy Spirit of God it is too well known that the Socinians deny his Deity and say That the Holy Spirit is nothing separate from the Word so that we need not to Baptize in his Name to praise him in our Doxology or to pray to him Come Holy Ghost Eternal God c. Our natural Reason and Faith in God makes the assistance of any other Spirit needless and why then should we wait on the Spirit of God any longer or believe that God will give any other Spirit to them that ask it Is there no other Spirit but that which works in the Children of Disobedience Are not some Souls an Habitation of God through the Spirit Read we not of the Spirit of the Son Gal. 4.6 that helps our Infirmities Do we not read of the divers Gifts of the Spirit and that it is Christ's Vice-Roy as I may say to preside over his Church to the World's end And is there no Love no Obedience due to his Spirit but we must joyn with the Socinians to pluck the Holy Ghost from his Throne 2. As for his enlarged Charity to his Brethren what love doth he manifest to the Church of God that hath been founded on this Rock of the Confession of St. Peter Thou art Christ the Son of the living God when by his Principles they are proclaimed to be Idolaters as worshipping a Creature besides the Creator and giving him and the Holy Spirit which by his Maxims are not God by nature the same Divine Honour which is due to God only And as to the Church of England particularly it hath been declared how contrary his Opinions are to her avowed Doctrines more especially his Charity to the Convocation of the Clergy at Westminster whom he condemns to be too stiff to their Constitutions when he says All the World expected a Condescention from them is not very large It was no very good Opinion that he
Trino Uno P. 419. He relates that famous Story of Uladislaus and Hunniades his General who having sworn to Articles of Peace with Amurath they laying their hands on the Evangelists and he on the Alcoran Pope Eugenius perswaded them to make War against Amurath notwithstanding their Oaths from which he sent Cardinal Julianus to Absolve them pretending they had no power to conclude a Peace without the Pope's approbation whereupon they assaulted Amurath with a great Army who being surprized and trusting to the Articles of Peace had made no great Provision for the War was at first put to flight but having gathered more Forces he bids them Battle and seeing the Banner of the Cross in his Enemy's Camp he takes the Articles of Peace out of his Bosom and says O Jesu Christ this is the Peace which they who glory in thy Name confirmed with me by their Oaths which they have perfidiously broken if thou be a God avenge this Perfidy and renewing the Fight routeth Hunniades and in the Flight Uladislaus is slain and the Cardinal having hid himself was discovered and slain and seventy Ships destroyed in the Hellespont which signal Providence was enough to convince a Turk that Christ was God Blandrata a Physician was for his Skill in that Science entertained by Prince Radzivil who being a Protestant Calvin wrote to him advising him to beware of Blandrata as a Man infected with the Error of Servetus On this Information he was summon'd to a Meeting at Pinkzove and being accused he fraudulently subscribed his Belief of the Trinity to keep up his Reputation with that Prince but finding himself suspected he gets into Poland and for his Skill in Physick was admitted as Physician to King Stephen and having gotten Liberty and Power he declared himself an Anti-trinitarian and wrote and acted very much in defence of his Opinion but was at length found dead in his Bed his neck being broken Socinus to prevent the Scandal that might be taken from the unfortunate Death of a Patron of his Heresie gave it out That he was strangled in his Bed by a Kinsman who being made his Heir strangled him that he might possess his Estate We have only a Comment of his on St. John chap. 1. which Junius de Trinitate and Zanch. de Tribus Elohim do recite and confute Lismaninus another Anti-trinitarian was accused for being an Arian by a Synod held at Morden where getting off upon his false Protestations he was afterwards convicted of it at Wodreslaw and drowned himself in a Well as Beza in his 81st Epistle Paulus Alciatus and Bernardinus Ochinus who both wrote against the Trinity did both turn Turks Beza reports that Gentilis being asked what became of his Friend and Companion Paulus Alciatus answer'd That he was turned Turk So Beza's Epistle 81. Puccius a Man of a Noble Family but a wavering Judgment for improving his Knowledge came and studied a while in Oxford where finding few Men of his mind he went to Basil and meeting with Socinus after much Discourse with him professed they could agree in nothing concerning Religion but that there was a God This was the Man that pleaded for a Natural Faith as our Doctor doth and other Wild Opinions for which he was driven thence and returned to England where he his Opinions being made known was cast into Prison and on his Release went into Holland from whence he went to Cracovia where he wrote a Book called The Bible Shut denying all Ordinances Ministry and Preaching till Elias should come and restore all things His Reason was from the Apostacy of the Church and he fancied that he was this Elias and expected a Call from Heaven to Commissionate him At length God having in his just Judgment given him up to such strong Delusions he meets with too English Men who came to Poland who pretended to Revelations and Converse with Angels but one of them was a Papist that acted a Mountebanck and the other a Magician with these he travels to Prague where the Papist having insinuated himself with Puccius perswaded him that he had a Revelation that Puccius must turn Papist which after a while he did and was reconciled to the Church of Rome but in a short time died a desperate Magician Franciscus David having long studied the Socinian Tenets was at length convinced That if Christ were a meer Man he ought not to be Invocated and Adored as God This troubled Socinus as foreseeing what a Scandal it would bring on his Opinions and therefore opposeth him with all his Industry professing he could not account them Christians that would not worship Christ which Worship he endeavoured to prove due to him by the Scripture but on his Supposition that Christ was a meer Man he could not evince for Christianus Franken took the part of Francis David and confounded Socinus by his own Arguments for having denied the Deity of Christ which was the Foundation of Religious Worship all his Arguments fell to the ground Socinus impatient of this Baffle and fearing it would be the utter overthrow of his Party draw up some Opinions of Franciscus David which were indeed as Gross and Heretical as any that had been thought of but such as were built on Socinian Principles one was this Jesus of Nazareth that is called Christ was a Man that spake not by the Spirit of Prophesie but by a Holy Spirit and though he was sent of God yet we may not account that whatever he spake came from the Mouth of God Hence it follows that both his and the words of his Apostles are to be brought and tryed by the Rule of the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if any thing in their Writings be found disagreeing from that Rule it is to be rejected or at least to be interpreted so as to agree with that Rule is not this the same as to equal a Natural Faith with the Evangelical which is the Standard of Faith and Manners These Opinions with an Antithesis to them Socinus presents to Barthoreus Prince of Transilvania who had cast David into Prison on the Persecution of Socinus and Blandrata who would put it off on the Samosatenians and other Sects who thereupon accused one another of Craft Treachery and Cruelty and being imprisoned in June died in November following During his Imprisonment he fell into great distraction through anguish of Spirit through the just Judgment of God upon him saith Socinus and in his distraction cryed out Behold who do expect me to be their Companion in my Journey and in this dreadful condition he expired But his abominable Heresies died not with him for one Martyne Seidelius was over-run with this Leprosie who gives this account of his Opinions That the Doctrine of the Messias did not belong to him for he was promised only to the Jews as the promise of the good things of Canaan had been so neither Circumcision and the Sacrifices and Ceremonies appointed by Moses do concern me but
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
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
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
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
Trinitat Pag. 9. Col. 2. He takes occasion to mention the two great Institutions of our Saviour viz. Baptism and the Sacrament of his Body and Blood these he calls Positive Rites which he i. e. Christ appointed thereby to ingage us to profess our selves his Disciples and are not Parts of his Covenant but Badges of his Followers and Acknowledgments of our Homage to his Person These Rituals says he we shall not neglect yet I find not one word of the Eucharist all that he says of Baptism is Pag. 22. Col. 2. That the Design of Baptism as he had said before was an open Profession of Faith in defiance to the World and all its Powers forgetting what he had said before on our Saviour's words and Commission to his Disciples whom he sent to baptize He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved not simply as he notes he that believeth but he that believeth and is baptized and as the Apostle Hebr. 6. reckoneth Baptism among the Fundamentals so it hath the Characters which our Author requires in a Fundamental viz. a Precept with a Promise annexed shall be saved yet he thinks it but a Ceremony and Badge of outward profession I cannot but take notice how the Doctor pretending to be an Advocate for Infant Baptism turns Prevaricator and instead of giving them a right to it robs them of the benefits thereof he says indeed that the Church may upon small security from other sureties admit any Infant for a Member i. e. of such a Society as do profess the Faith of Christ and by his argument they may as well omit as admit the Baptism of Children for says he since the Gospel is the established Religion and the Profession of the very Parents maketh great odds against any danger of the contrary the Church may c. So that the Profession of the Parents may supersede the small security of other Sureties and if there be no other end of Baptism but to ingage Infants to the Profession of Faith in Christ it may be omitted till they are adult or if they should die before they who are not baptized are in no worse condition than they who are baptized And is not our Author deeply baptized into the Sentiments of the Socinians in all this and become a Disciple of them and the Antipedobaptists A Son of the Church of England is taught that Baptism is generally necessary to Salvation That it is certain by God's Word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved in the Rubrick after Baptism and in the Catechism Baptism is defined to be an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof and the benefit of it is this That being by nature born in Sin and Children of Wrath we are thereby made the Children of Grace or as it is more largely expressed the baptized are made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But the Socinians reason cannot apprehend how this can be As to the other Sacrament one Egg is not better like another than his Discourse of the Lord's Supper is with that of Smalcius in the Doctor 's Book called the Constant Communicant which he that reads will find to be but a Comment on Smalcius his Text who as generally the Socinians do teach that this Sacrament which they call a Rite was instituted only for a Remembrance of the Death of Christ not that we receive any new benefit by it or that any thing is therein conveyed or sealed to us and so the words of Consecration are interpreted by the Doctor as by a Socinian thus i. e. This whole action which is now doing is my Body which is given for you i. e. signifies my giving myself to Death for your Salvation so that ye ought alway to commemorate my Death by this Rite or Ceremony And Socinus plainly denieth that the Sacraments are strengthners of our Faith or seals whereby the Promises of God are confirmed to us or the strength of heavenly Grace encreased The Doctor also calls the Sacraments Rites makes the Lord's Supper only a Grace-cup to be commended to one another after a Feast and breaking some Bread prepared for that use and therefore we need not dread to be constant Communicants or to be precise in our Reverence at it as if he would have us forbear kneeling as the Socinians do lest we should be thought to Adore On a design to deny that there is the presence of Christ's Body or Bloud in any sence or that any Grace or Promise is thereby conveyed or sealed to us these things are some of them obscurely and some of them too plainly asserted in that Book One general Remark more which I formerly mention'd is That he often speaks of a Divinity of Christ but never of his Deity which is noted to be studiously done by the Socinians that though they grant our Saviour a kind of Divinity as a Man of God yet will not honour him with the title of a Deity as God and Man wherein they deal with Christ as the Heathen dealt with their Hero's as Servius notes on Virgil Deos vocabant perpetuos Divos ex Hominibus factos or as we call our ancient Writers Divus Angustinus This is observed by Cloppenburgh against Smalcius that he allowed our Saviour to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Partaker of the Divine Nature which St. Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1.4 which may be attributed to all holy Men. Smalcius placing in his Frontispiece the 9th Verse of Col. 2. keeps to this word and thus renders it In Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Divinity bodily on which Cloppenburgh observes that with Smalcius the Deity and Divinity do differ as much as Infinite and Finite And it is to be feared that the Doctor hath the same Notion though not only our Translation but Pagnine and Arias Montanus read as we do the Fulness of the Godhead c. for he still keeps to the word Divinity when he speaks of Christ as Smalcius did before him Another Remark is his depraving the nature and necessity of Evangelical Faith and setting Reason and Natural Religion above and against it Here first I remark how well the Doctor agrees with Volkelius in his Discourse of Faith There are saith the Doctor but two Articles of Faith at most and sometime they are reduced to one and either of them Faith and Repentance There are saith Volkelius two general Precepts of the Gospel Faith and Repentance which are sometime joyned in one Precept and sometime in distinct Precepts De fide And he mentions the same of the Gospel as our Doctor often doth That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved But then Volkelius by this Faith means an
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
was prevailed with to subscribe but returning home to Spain Athanasius says that Hosius on his Death-bed repented complaining of the Violences which were offered him and anathematized the Arians charging all the People to avoid that Heresie Athanasius gives him an excellent Character and in allusion to his Name says He was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a Holy Man Another Synod was made up by some of these Men at Sirmium where they condemned as well the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being not Scriptural words and 't is observed that in their address to the Emperour among other Titles which they gave him they termed him Eternal which they denied to grant to the Son of God whom they affirmed to be a Creature This Synod was held Anno Dom. 359. But there needed yet a farther Confirmation of the Arian Doctrine and therefore the Emperour is perswaded to send to the Bishop of Rome to summon all the Bishops of the Latine as the Emperour undertook for the Bishops of the Greek Church and there was like to be so great a concourse that one place was not thought capable to entertain them wherefore Ariminum in Italy was appointed for the Western and Selucia for the Eastern Bishops Here Valens finding the Nicene Faith likely to be confirmed read a Creed very like to that of the Nicene one only expression being subtily inserted viz. That Christ was not a Creature like unto other Creatures and all the rest being agreeable to the Nicene Faith they were unwarily prevailed with to sign that Creed which implied our Saviour to be a Creature the same after much Controversie was confirm'd at Selucia by the means of Leonas whom the Emperour sent there for that purpose Some of the Eastern Bishops in their Return stayed at a place called Nice in Thracia where they confirmed the same Faith thinking to recommend it to the common People under the name of the Nicene Faith These were headed by Ursacius And at Antioch some others met Anno. 360. and condemned the use of the word Substance whence they were called Anomaeans and Exoucontians But about this time Constantius dies viz. Anno 361 whose great business was to establish the Arian Faith imploying the Bishops in one Synod after another and influencing them all by his own Presence or his Deputies and his Threatning Letters But on his Death-bed it is said he repented of these three things 1. That he had caused the Death of so many of his Kindred 2ly That he had named Julian to be his Successor in the Empire And 3ly That he had occasioned so many Troubles and Innovations in the Church and Faith See Theoderet l. 3. c. 1. p. 125. But Athanasius survived him many Years and died in a good old Age having established the Foundation of the Christian Faith and thereupon raised a perpetual Monument of his Learning and Piety which shall be happily remembred in all Places where the Gospel is preached Chap. 9. He says The Dispute is dangerous and the Danger is twofold 1. Of Blasphemy 2. Contention 1. Concerning Blasphemy They who held the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were thought to blaspheme as denying that the Son had any substance of his own The others were accused as Heathen that brought in the Worship of many Gods And thus he says either Party charged the other with Blasphemy As for the Arians it may well be thought that they had their superior and inferior Gods in that they worshipped a Created God but the Consubstantialists worshipped one God only i. e. the Trinity in Unity There is no doubt a Blasphemy against the Son of God when as the Pharisees that would have stoned him because he said he was the Son of God thinking that he acted by the help of Belzeebub the Prince of Devils and if they had only denied him to have wrought his Miracles by the Spirit of God this had been a Blaspemy An ancient Divine of our Church Mr. Porter writing of the Incarnation of our Saviour gives his sence of Matth. 12.31 32. which I only repeat and leave the Reader to judge of it being alien from the common Interpretation Christ having cast out a Devil by his Divine Spirit the Pharisees knowing it must be done by some supernatural Power would not grant it to be by the Power of God but of the Devil our Saviour convinceth them that it was done by the Spirit of God tho' they would not acknowledge it but against the Evidence of a Divine Power blasphemed the Spirit by which our Saviour had done that Miracle They had reproached him as a Man before calling him a gluttonous Person a Wine-bibber a friend of Publicans and Sinners This was remissius ventire de felio hominis But when they blaspheme the Spirit of God by which he had cast out a Devil as if by consent of Devils he had cast them out this he denounceth an unpardonable Sin the Sin against the Holy Ghost i. e. saith he Against the spirit of God in Christ not taken personally for the Holy Ghost but essentially for the Godhead of Christ for which he quotes St. Basil saying Spiritus appellatio est Communis tribus personis And Tertul. Jesus Christus est Spiritus dei St. August also Quia deus Spiritus est potest dici Pater est Spiritus filius est spiritus c. 2. He says the Pharisees had not heard of the Person of the Holy Ghost of which some of the Disciples were not fully instructed The Question was Whether Christ acted by the Spirit and Power of God or the Devil And Christ proves he did it by the Spirit i. e. by the Power of the Godhead The sence then of our Saviour's Answer to make it pertinent to the Objection is this What I have now done I have proved to be done by the Spirit of God and though what you have spoken against me as the Son of Man may be forgiven yet what you or any other shall speak against me as the Son of God shall never be forgiven Therefore he concludes that to deny the Deity of Christ is that Blasphemy for to rob Christ of his Godhead which is the foundation of the Remission of Sins is to exclude ourselves from that benefit Qui negat deum in Christo caret omni Misericordia He that denies Christ to be God cannot obtain mercy Hence the Fathers affirm Arius and Julian who denyed the Deity of Christ to be guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost 2 St. John 4.3 Every spirit or doctrine Qui soluit Jesum So St. Heirom Prosp c. read that Text That divides the Deity of Christ from his Humanity is Antichrist St. Ambrose de Fide And he is Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son 1 Joh. 2.22 He adds It is dangerous because we have no firm footing from Scripture Antiquity or Councils Which because he only affirms without shew of proof it will be sufficient to
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
was apparently designed by the Compilers for some special use to fence the Catholick Faith from the Corruptions Depravations Doubtings and Contradictions of Hereticks as in the Nicene Creed the Oneness of our Lord Jesus Christ was added when the Arians opposed the Apostolick Tradition and by corrupting detected the words of Scripture to their sence which Dr. H. shews more largely in his Note on 1 Joh. 5.7 and of such Additions he says That when the Church hath thought meet to erect an additional Bulwark against Hereticks such as reject them may be deemed to side with those Hereticks p. 86. And this is the summ of what he says concerning the Athanasian Creed the Doctrine whereof he says is well nigh all to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons against those Hereticks who had brought Novel Propositions into the Church of which Doctrinal part he says that Athanasius being only a Father of the Church they were not necessary to be explicitely acknowledged nor absolutely imposed on any but such as were Members of some Church that had actually received Athanasius's Explication or than it appeared concordant with the more authentick universal Confessions as every Doctrinal Proposition of it will be found to do As for the Damnatory Sentences Dr. Ham. supposeth them to be interpreted in opposition to those Heresies that had invaded the Church not that it defined it to be a damnable sin to fail in understanding or believing the full matter of any of those Explications Dr. Ham. having as a wise Master Builder laid this Foundation shews how necessary it is for the end of building on it a holy Life and an uniform universal Obedience to the Commands of Christ in opposition to Idolatry Formality Hypocrisie and to Sacriledge Profaneness and Impiety as also to improve the Vertues of Obedience to Superiours Charity to all Mankind Purity of Flesh and Spirit Contentedness and taking up the Cross and lastly how useful it is to confute false Doctrines 1. Of the Romanists as Penances Indulgences of Supererrogating Merits of Attrition improved into Contrition by the Priest's aid without change of Life Dispensableness of Oaths Arts of Equivocation Purgatory Cessation of Allegiance and especially of Infallibility 2ly Of the Solifidians and Fiduciaries the Predestinarians and irrespective Decrees of Election and Reprobation of the Divine Prescience against the Socinians who deny that God foresees all things and though they grant his Omnipresence and Omnipotence yet question the infinity of his Science which is apparently false as appears by God's Predictions to the Prophets When I considered the Writings of both these Doctors their Foundations and Superstructures it brought to my mind those two sorts of Builders and Building mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 7. the one built on that approved Rock of St. Peter 's Confession the other on that Sand whereon Arius Socinus and that Man of an ominous Name Sandius pitcht their Tabernacles the one stands firm tho' for 1600 Years the Rain descended Flouds came and the Wind blew on it the other tho' like the Walls of Jerusalem it hath been often attempted to be fastned hath still been blown down and may the Fall of it be still great P. 41. c. 2. Our Doctor says If the Relation between the written Word and rational Consequence be so remote as none but a skilful Herald can derive its Pedigree then is a good Christian no more obliged to believe such an Inference than is every good Subject to be a good Herald As if the Ignorant were no ways obliged to follow the Directions of the wise and good Men or as if Subjects were not bound to obey those Laws whereof they cannot ken those Reasons which the wise and consulting Legislators on good Reasons have established for their Security What tho' the Papists do most absurdly infer from Christ's Command to St. Peter to feed his Lambs that all those Popes which pretend to be his Successors are thereby commissioned to Rule and Govern all Nations and Persons in all Ages Cannot so enquiring a Person as the Doctor or one that is more or one that is less rational from such Scriptural premises as God was made Flesh Christ is God over all equal and one with his Father with undeniable Reason infer as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath done That he is the Eternal Son of God But such an Inference is so contrary to the Socinian's Reason that it is equally rejected with contempt and derision as Popish Impositions and by the Doctor numbred among them But Bernardus non videt omnia He undertakes therefore to bless the World with such a description of them that it shall be as easie to know them without pains or art as it was for the meanest Beggar in the street to understand whom King Ahasuerus would Honour when he caused Mordecai in Royal Manner to be publickly honoured and by Proclamation enjoyned the People to bow the Knee as he past by them The Qualifications for Matter of Faith he says must be these 1. It must be easie to be understood by the meanest capacity and therefore he rejects any thing that is called a Mystery though God manifested in the Flesh be so called by the Apostle yea though the same Mystery be implied in that very Scripture which he quotes to prove his assertion viz. Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus i. e. that Jesus is the Lord which no man can say but by the Holy Ghost i. e. not by a natural Faith but by a supernatural Revelation such as our Saviour says Flesh and blood hath not revealed And it is observable that though in the Title of this Chapter he mentioneth the Word as well as the Matter to be believed yet he makes no mention of the Word by which the Person of our Saviour is generally understood so that Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ the Foundation of our Faith is excluded from being the Object of our belief for he writes the WORD in a larger Character which might induce the Reader to believe that he meant as St. John 1.1 The Son of God which is the adequate Object of Christian Faith but speaks nothing of him in all that Chapter 2ly He says It must be an express Word of God This no Protestant denieth but they do generally urge it against the Papists who teach as necessary Articles of Faith the Commandments of Men And may we not conclude by this Position that they who oppugne such a Fundamental to which Eternal Life is promised may come short of Salvation Christ saith He that believes and is baptized this is but one entire proposition as our Author observes that it is not only he that believes but he that believes and is baptized and Salvation cannot belong to them that put asunder what Christ hath joyned as the Socinians do in the Case of Baptism which they call only a Rite and Ceremony 3ly He says It must be expresly honoured with
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
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
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
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