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
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
not with Angels And let Socinus shew where ever Moses in the Old Testament is called Christ or where the name of Christ put absolutely is attributed in the New Testament to any other than to our Saviour 3ly To tempt any one before he was is said gratis but thus they fall into temptation who attempt to deprive the Son of the Living God of his Deity and Eternity The second Instance is out of the Psalms where that which is proposed of the glorious going of Jehovah Psal 68.19 is expounded of Christ ascending on high and leading Captivity Captive Ephes 4.8 2ly That which is ascribed to Jehovah Worship him all ye Angels Psal 97.7 is affirmed of Christ Heb. 1.6 Let all the Angels of God worship him 3ly That which is affirmed of the Creator of Heaven and Earth Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the Works of thy hands Psal 102.26 is attributed to Christ in the self same words Heb. 1.10 The Adversaries are diligent to decline this either by denying that these things in the Old Testament are to be understood of the most high God or to be repeated in the New Testament concerning Christ or by affirming that these things may be accommodated to Christ but not as God of the same Nature with the Father but because he did represent the Person of the most high God Ans Not only the words but the scope of those Texts do exclude these Evasions That if in any manner our Saviour represented the Person of his Father in the Old Testament it was then necessarily before he was born of the Virgin which wholly destroys the Cause of our Adversaries 3ly The same is proved out of the Prophets for that Majesty of the most High which is so magnificently described Isa 6.1 is applied unto Christ by Name These things spake Esay when he saw his glory and spake of him John 12.41 Many others of this sort may be produced Socinus objects That these things are either spoken figuratively or are adapted to Christ only by way of accommodation but conclude nothing of his Eternal Deity Ans Then those Apostles and Evangelists which urge and accommodate them to that purpose do deal with us sophistically or unskilfully and are to be corrected and explained by Posterity viz. the Socinians The fourth Argument is drawn from certain Attributes ascribed to Christ which clearly evince that he is of the same Nature and Excellency with the Father of very many I shall only name three viz. Eternity in respect of Time Omnipresence in respect of Place and Adoration in respect of Sovereign Majesty and Dominion Now his Eternity is asserted from these places The Lord hath possest me in the beginning of his ways from the beginning before he made any thing Prov. 8.22 The Syriack read from Eternity the Arabick I have begot thee before the Morning-star Ps 110. 2ly His coming forth is from the days of eternity To which 3ly our Saviour confirms the same of himself Joh. 8.58 Before Abraham was I am Here Socinus objects That in the first place Wisdom signifies not the Son of God but the Wisdom of God nor doth this expression of the beginning of his ways signifie Eternity but Antiquity But this Interpretation is excluded by the following Verse I was set up from everlasting from the beginning before the earth was The Apostle confirms our Argument We preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God 1 Cor. 1.4 To our second Argument he cavils That thence it would follow that Christ from Everlasting came forth from Bethleam This is a shift for the Text of the Prophet suggests a double going forth a temporal concerning which 't is said in the Future Tense He will go forth the fulfilling of which Prediction the Evangelists observes Mat. 2.6 And an eternal of which it is said in the Preterperfect Tense His going forth was from eternity To the third he trifles that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely to be but to become and hence the Vulgar reads Before he became Abraham i. e. a Father of Nations I am i. e. I was sent to pluck down the partition wall to bring the Gentiles into the Church Ans The Question was not concerning the calling of the Gentiles but whether Christ preceded Abraham so as he might see him our Saviour affirms that he was viz. by the glory which he had with the Father before the World began Joh. 17.5 which the Jews endeavoured to refute with Stones as now the Socinians by Subterfuges Again we assert his Omniprefence from Joh. 3.13 None hath ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of Man which is in heaven where he was before John 6.62 Now this he spake to Nicodemus while he was on Earth and yet he declared that he was then in Heaven therefore at the same time he was in Heaven and on Earth The Innovators do here betake themselves to an unheard of Comment viz. That as Moses was taken up into the Mount and St. Paul into the third Heavens that they might be instructed of God speaking to them as it were face to face so it was more convenient that the Son should be assumed into Heaven and instructed by the Father Which they think was done during those forty Days which intervened between his Baptism and his Conflict with Satan this though they do not urge as an Article of Faith yet Smalcius saith We are fully perswaded of it and greatly rejoyce that this Mistery is revealed to us by God in the Scripture But this Mistery nor the Revelation of it doth please us for what need was there that he should be taken up into Heaven for a more perfect Information on whom the Holy Spirit did descend and in whom the Godhead dwelt Bodily in whom the Father was always and he in the Father 2ly He was amongst the wild Beasts in the Wilderness for the space of those forty Days the Devil tempting him and the Angels ministering unto him as St. Mark expresly saith Was the Desart Heaven and were Satan and the Beasts admitted into it Nor doth this Fiction satisfie the Argument seeing we thus urge the Text That the Son of Man whom Nicodemus saw and spake to saith expresly of himself that he was then in Heaven which could not be as he was a Man therefore it must be as he was God Omnipresent The more the Adversaries do strive in this Point the more they intangle themselves Lastly We infer the Deity of Christ from the Adoration which was performed unto him for he was adored as God by Stephen the Proto-Martyr calling on him Acts 7.59 Lord Jesus receive my spirit Francis David answereth That that Jesus here is of the Genitive Case and the sence is this O thou Lord who art the Father of Jesus making the Father to be the Object of Invocation not the Son Christianus Franken presseth the same Argument
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
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
effectual opperative Faith which all that profess to believe both these Articles have not and to which we appropriate Salvation and therefore the Doctor 's disputing in general of a Notional Faith and a Credulity as he calls it and under that Notion condemns is a Sophistical way of arguing much worse than any that Volkelius himself is guilty of for he discourseth of such a Faith as includes Repentance and Evangelical Obedience not such as is the effect of Natural Reason but of the Opperation of the Spirit of Patefaction as he calls it but more plainly such as he describes from St. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man such as he saith are all that are destitute of the Divine Spirit doth not understand the things of the spirit of God and v. 9. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard nor the mind conceived what things God hath prepared for them that love him but God hath revealed them to us by his spirit Spiritu Patifactionis l. 3. c. 14. If these and other Opinions of Volkelius be compared with our Doctor 's Natural Faith it would appear to any impartial Reader that the Doctor is the grosser Socinian of the two On this Subject he spends several Chapters the Contents of the first is to shew he says in what sence Faith justifies but indeed he shews that it doth not justifie and first he condemns it as the unhappy Occasion of the Gnosticism which so much troubled St. Paul by corrupting the Disciples minds from the Simplicity of the Gospel which is all he says and he might as well charge good Laws with all the Villanies that are committed against them for the Scripture had foretold there must be Heresies and there would be Schisms and that men would walk after their own lusts and deny the Lord that bought them though the Evangelical Faith do no more cause these than the Sun doth those Works of Darkness which are committed in its light To make amends for this he says 2ly That it is so happy as to be honoured by our Lord and his Apostles as to be made the sole Condition of our Salvation But after this he asks p. 10. And now what need of Repentance of running the Gantelope of Mortification crossing our Appetites and afflicting our Souls As if the Doctrine of Faith did not include or presuppose Repentance or as if any sort of Repentance were available without Faith and as if the merit of good Works were a necessary and efficacious Ingredient to the Cause of Justification for thus he joyns Justification by Works upon account of Natural Religion with Justification by Faith upon account of the Gospel Hence in the 12th Page he makes a large Harangue Col. 2. What are the great merits of Faith which may any way entitle it to so great a Reward as Everlasting Life Whatever can pretend to worth must make its claim good by shewing how it partaketh the Nature of God who is the first Good but to be credulous is so far from the power of Divine Life that it is a plain confession of Weakness it is nothing else but leaning on another for want of knowledge of its own The simple believeth every word but a wise man looketh well to his going said the wisest of all Men and experience tells us that Children and Dotards Women and Fools the Sick and Ignorant are most easie and by how much any Man is wiser by so much he is warier that he be not imposed on Had it any worth we should have heard of it in Moses and the Prophets and the Philosophers would have allowed it a place among the Vertues and the Old Testament mentions it but once or twice and that not by way of Precept but occasionly and what reward can it possibly deserve if I believe either I do it on good reason or not if I see good reason for my belief I cannot deserve reward because no Man can choose but must necessarily believe as far as reason requires if I believe without reason then I am a Fool and so far from deserving a reward that I deserve blame and if it seem hard to justify our Lord's wisdom in promising so great a reward to a performance that deserves none at all it will appear no less so to justify his goodness in imposing such a Task no less difficult than worthless for whereas no small part of the good Tidings of the Gospel is our Manumission from the Burden of Moses's Law the Yoke of Christ will seem harder of the two it is easier for a rich Man to sacrifice whole Hecatombs when he hath Wealth enough to purchase them than to pull out his Eyes yet can a Man easier pull out the eye of his Body than his Reason which is not only the eye but the heart for it is his very definition without which he cannot be a Man it is God's Image and the Apostle exhorts us to put on the new Man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him Now that God should print his Image in our hearts require us to renew it yet promise eternal Life for reward if we deface it is a saying harder to be believed than all the Ceremonies of Moses's Law were to be practised This and more says he is objected against Faith in general and against what Faith but in particular against that of the Holy Trinity and the Eternal Deity of Christ Now when the Doctor so industriously suggests all these Objections against Faith and takes no care to assoile them he betrays that Cause which he would seem to defend as it will appear in his fourth Chapter The Socinians affirm with our Doctor That nothing must be believed that cannot be apprehended and understood by Reason To this we say that it is not contrary to any Principle of right Reason that the Eternal Creator and Law-giver in revealing his will should propose Articles to be assented to upon his own Authority revealing them though his Creatures cannot by their Reason apprehend how those Articles should be true Divine Faith is grounded on a Divine Testimony as it is Divine T 〈…〉 de Pae 〈…〉 Neque enim quia bonum est id circo ausculture debemus sed quia Deus precepit For we do obey the Command not because we judge it good but because God commands it And as St. Augustin Judicatur ad id quod possumus creditur ad quod non possumus How can the corrupt and finite reason of Man comprehend the Reasonableness of an Alwise and Infinite God We allow to all Governors some Arcana Imperii which the Vulgar cannot judge of and shall we not allow it to the only Wise God the Governor of the World is there nothing above the sphear of natural Reason How then comes it to pass that it is baffled in so many natural things in Sympathies and Antipathies and Occult Qualities the Effects whereof are demonstrated but the Causes cannot be known And shall Man
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
Service of God by the free Directions of their own Nature That to this end he sent his only begotten Son into the World teaching them That the best service of God consisteth in being like him and for their encouragement therein promising them upon their Repentance pardon of Sins past and everlasting Life This saith he is the Sum of the Gospel i. e. of his Naked Gospel Here is not a word of that Grace and Truth that came by Jesus nor that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself Making him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Not a word of that Redemption which St. Peter speaks of made for us by the precious Blood of the Son of God or that Christ redeemed the Church by his own Blood dying for our Sins and rising again for our Justification Revel 1. washing us in his own Blood from our Sins Not a word of that which St. Paul made his whole work to preach Christ crucified that others with him might know him and the power of his resurrection that we may be found in him not having our own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3.8 9. Nor that without the shedding of this Blood there could be no Remission of Sins But though the Apostle counts this knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord so excellent that all things else are but loss and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogs meat in comparison with it Yet the Doctor prefers his Natural Faith or his Carnal Reason above all this for there is not one word of all this to cover the Nakedness of his New-born Gospel but as the Socinians say God sent his only begotten Son into the World to teach them not to die for them how by the free Directions of their own Nature without any grace or assistance of the Spirit of God or any Revelations of that Grace and Truth that came by him That the best service of God consists in being like him to which end he supposeth the free Dictates of their own Nature are sufficient Deus nil fecit promising them upon their Repentance pardon of their Sins past and everlasting Life Which John Baptist and other Prophets had done before him Not a word of Christ's giving Repentance or that eternal Life is the gift of God which he grounds on that Repentance which flows from the free Directions of their own Nature What part Faith hath in all this is his next Enquiry which is to shew that it hath no part at all Enquiry II. He says is to shew What Changes or Additions later Ages have made in Matter of Faith He tells us p. 50. c. 2. That our Lord honoured it as the Great King did Daniel above all his Princes That he came into the World to advance it That he promised it eternal Life and both he and his Apostle make it half the Gospel we meet it in every page of the New Testament and on sight of its glory we talk as St. Peter did when confounded at the brightness of our Lord we know not what But our Author hath no sooner cried his Hosanna to Faith as the Jews did to Christ but presently proclaims his Crucifigite and casts this Daniel into a Lion's Den to be rent by such furious Beasts he first casts her from the Throne wherein Christ placed it and what the Gospel makes the Mother-Grace he makes the Mother-Error p. 51. c. 1. his words are This is the Mother-Error that whereas Faith is no better than a Retainer to Holiness we place it in the Throne as an Absolute Prince and think it our Duty to enlarge its Dominions as far and exalt its Prerogative as high as we can as if it were some precious Diamond valuable for its Brightness Hardness or other irrespective Vertue of its own Doth this Author know what he says or consider whereof he affirms these things If it be of that implicite Faith required in the Church of Rome or that naked Faith of the Gnosticks or Solifidians viz. a bare profession of Faith in Christ separate from Obedience he only beats the Air but if of that Faith required in the Gospel and professed in the Church of England the nature whereof he cannot but know then he striks at the very Life of Christian Religion for that is a Faith working by Love a Faith in Christ's meritorious Death Passion Resurrection and Intercession which the Socinians will not admit of A Faith that purifieth the Heart that teacheth us that Christ dying for all all were dead in Sins and Trespasses and that he died for all that henceforth they should not live to themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again this is the true Christian Faith grounded on the Grace of God which bringeth salvation and hath appeared to all men teaching them that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts they should live righteously soberly and godly in this present world This the end of manifesting the Gospel as St. Paul Rom. 16.26 This the Obedience of Faith This is the Faith which we preach in the Church of England and which the Doctor so opposeth and vilifieth It is evident that the Faith which this Doctor would degrade is that which hath for its Object Christ crucified bearing our Sins making an Atonement bearing the Chastisement of our Peace reconciling us to God by the Sacrifice on the Cross All which he would resolve into a Natural Faith in the Veracity of God and so makes our Faith in Christ crucified the chiefest Notion of a justifying Faith to be of none effect But let us hear the Reason he gives for his degrading of Faith p. 50. c. 2. We consider not saith he that two of the reasons which induced our Lord to call so importunately for it are expired Those Reasons I suppose we had p. 19. c. 2. 1. The Difficulties of believing 2. The Danger of professing it To which there needs no other Answer then what he himself hath given p. 50. c. 1. That Faith must necessarily be called for with importunity suitable both to the Difficulties and Dangers which at that time encompassed it and to the serviceableness which at all times accompanies it For is there not now also need of Faith to strengthen us against the Temptations of the World the Flesh and the Devil Or is our Fight now only against Flesh and Bloud are there not Spiritual Wickednesses also Are there not such Lusts as are as dear as a right Hand or Eye that must be cut off And what is it that giveth us the Victory over these and a world of others but our Faith Were not our Faith serviceable to these ends he might have some excuse for calling our Saviour a humersome and capricious Lord as he doth p. 51. c. 1. and p. 57. c. 2. that without any other motive than his unaccountable will imposeth a
observe that such a Practice was ancient and in some times reasonable Antonius Pagi a Franciscan in his Critical Notes upon Baronius ad Seculum secundum p. 21 c. gives us several Quotations to this purpose St. Augustine on John Tract 96. says That the Sacraments of the Faithful are not exposed to the Catechumens and the Catechumens do not know what the Faithful do receive Chrysostom on Matth. Hom. 27. Those only that are initiated do know what the Faithful receive Origine in his first Book against Celsus shews the Reason as well as the Custom of concealing some Christian Rites he tells him That the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation Crucifixion Resurrection and coming to Judgment were known to all but the Jews derided them and that was the cause that other Mysteries were concealed particularly that of the Holy Trinity And concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity St. Chrysostome Hom. 4. on 1 Cor. professeth that he durst not speak of the Form of Baptism and of the Creed in which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity is explained I dare not saith he because of those that are not yet initiated who make the Exposition more difficult who compel us either not to speak openly or to discover Secrets to them yet I will speak of them as far as I am permitted under Figures St. Cyril of Jer. Catech. 6. speaking of the Mysteries contained in the Creed says The Church layeth open these Mysteries and Sacraments to those that are initiated but it is not their Custom to expose them to the Gentiles we do not declare to them the Mystery of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor do we openly preach them to the Catechumens but in such a secret manner as they that profess the things may understand it and they who understand it not may not be prejudiced There is something to this purpose in Soz. l. 1. c. 20. I thought saith he to have set forth a Copy of the Creed as necessary for the Demonstration of our Faith but when some of my Friends pious Men and well skilled in the knowledge of these things perswaded me that I should keep in silence such things as are fit for Priests only to speak of and for such as are already initiated to hear I approved of their Counsel because it is very probable that some who are not yet initiated may read these Books wherefore I have hid as much as I could those Secrets which ought to be concealed acquainting the Reader with such Decrees of the Council which they ought not to be wholly ignorant of And indeed we find that the Heathen when they heard of the secret Doctrines of the Trinity Sacraments and Prayers of the Primitive Christians did make sport of them and ridicul'd them on their Theatres and publick Plays whereof we have an instance in Lucian's Philopatris or a Dialogue wherein he represents a Christian instructing an Ethnick by whom he ought to swear Thou shalt swear says he by the God that rules on high the great immortal and immutable God by the Son of the Father and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father one in three and three in one conceive this to be Jupiter your God To which the Ethnick answers I cannot apprehend what you say is one three and three one Thus also he scoffs at our Lord's Prayer when the Heathen bids his Catechumen go and say the Prayer beginning Father and end with a Song of many Names i. e. the Doxology Socinus says in his Defence against Eutropius That he never read any thing more strong for the Opinion of the Trinity than this of Lucian he wrote in the time of Trajan St. Hierom speaking of the Translation of the Septuagint says That the Translators did not reveal to Ptolomy the Incarnation of the Son of God lest the Heathen should think they had two Gods Proeme on Gen. Casaubone on Baronius Exerat 16. and Monsieur Morney mention the same Discipline which may be a great reason why so few of those ancient Fathers mentioned the Trinity and those who did spake in such dark Terms as our Author himself hath observed p. 56. c. 2. that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did hide from the Catechumens the Rites of Sacraments So that considering this Discipline which restrained many Ancients from publishing the whole Truth and the diligence of the several Hereticks to alter and expunge what was written against them it is a wonderful Providence that so many Authentick Testimones are preserved The following Collections are mostly from Mr. Bull 's Book where the Reader may see them asserted The Epistle of Barnabas written about the time of the Apostles call Christ the Son of God Lord of the whole World by whom and for whom all things were made i. e. by him as the Efficient and for him as the Final Cause which agreeth with the Apostle Rom. 11.36 and cannot be said of any but God without Blasphemy s 1. c. 2. n. 2. and in c. 5. of that Epistle he says That he who foreknew all things foretold his People that he would take away the Heart of Stone and give them a Heart of Flesh because he was to appear or be made manifest in the Flesh and to dwell in us for our Hearts says he are the holy Temple of the Lord. Hermas another Apostolical Writer in his Book called The Pastor affirms That the Son of God was present with his Father before all Creatures and calls him his Counsellor and that the name of the Son of God is great and infinite that the whole World is sustained by him and thus distinguisheth between the Son of God and the Creatures Similitud 9. And l. 3. Simil. 5. he says The Son of God is not put in a servile condition but in great power for to be put in the form of a Servant and to be a Creature are of one signification This agrees with that distinction of the Apostle Phil. 2. c. 6. between the Form of a Servant and the Form of God Of this Author Petavius says That he was never suspected to have any false Opinion of the Trinity Martialis a Bishop and Martyr and who is said to have been one of the seventy Disciples in his Epistle to the Burdegalenses c. 2. says of our Saviour That as a Man born of the Virgin he could die but as the Son of God he was from the beginning and as God he could not be held under the power of Death And Chap. 4. He being the true God and true Man shall judge all Nations Chap. 10. That the Spirit of God most glorious by Divine Equality did proceed from the Word not begotten not made nor created but the Word was begotten therefore says he do ye not conceive any thing different in the Deity of the Trinity because to you there is one and the same God the Father that created all things and one and the same Lord by whom all things were made his Son Jesus Christ and one and
the same God the Holy Spirit in whom all things subsist and this Deity spoken of in three Persons is one individed God And Chap. 11. When we are freed from this Body we shall be in Heaven with Christ God and Man whom we worshipped here on Earth Polycarp an Apostolical Author in his undoubted Epistle to the Philippians says Thus God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest and Son of God Build you up in the Faith and Truth c. Such an Invocation is proper only to God with whom the Son is joyned And again We are all in the sight of God and the Lord and must all stand before the Tribunal of Christ And in another Fragment of Polycarp's mentioned by Eusebius l. 4. c. 15. we have these words I bless thee in all things and glorifie thee by the Eternal High-Prist Jesus Christ thy beloved Son by whom to thee together with him in the Holy Spirit be glory now and for ever Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and a Martyr was the Disciple of Polycarp he begins his Epistle to the Smyrnians thus I glorifie Jesus Christ God who hath made you so wise And thus he salutes the Ephesians In the good will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God there is one Omnipotent God who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son who is his substantial Word and not by pronunciation but the begotten Essence of the Divine Power Ad Magnes 3. So in the 5th to the Philip. The Lord commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not in one that had three names only nor in three that were Incarnate but in three of the same Dignity for one of them was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but the Son only who was so not in opinion nor in Phantasie but indeed for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us How should not he be God who raised the Dead made the Lame to walk cleansed the Leapers and gave sight to the Blind And to the Philadelphians There is one God the Father unbegotten one Son the only begotten God the Word and Man one Paraclete the Spirit of Truth If any one say there is one God and confess Jesus Christ but conceives him to be a meer Man and not the only Begotten the Word and Wisdom of God but thinks him to consist only of a Body and a Soul this Man is a Serpent as Ebion was who taught error and deceit Epist 6. To those of Smyrna Epist 7. he calls Christ the God that bore flesh And Epist 8. to Polycarp He that was not passible as God suffered for us as he was Man In the 9th to the Antiochians He who acknowledgeth one only God to deny the Deity of Christ he is a Devil and Enemy of all Righteousness And in the Conclusion of that Epistle He who only is unbegotten preserve you both in Body and Soul by him who was born before Ages Epistle 11. ad Ephes The Word was made Flesh the Incorporeal in a Body the Impossible in a Body passible In his Epistle to the Romans Suffer me to be an Imitator of the Passion of Christ my God And in another Epistle to the Ephes There is one Physitian Carnal and Spiritual made and not made God in the Flesh the true Life in Death of God and of Mary Clemens Romanus useth the same distinction of our Saviour according to the Flesh and attributing to him the Splendor of the Magnificence of God preferring him above the Angels And his Expressions do so agree with those in Heb. 1. that Junius after St. Heirom and others have supposed him to be the Author of that Epistle he exhorts the Corinthians to Humility because saith he Our Lord Jesus Christ the Scepter of the Magnificence of God came not in Pride Consider says he what an Example is set before us if the Lord so humbled himself what should we do who live under the yoke of his grace There is a second Epistle of St. Clement mentioned by Eusebius l. 3. c. 38. And in the Apostolical Canons which speaks thus Brethren we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God nor ought we to think meanly of our Salvation for if we think too meanly of him we can hope but of little things from him St. Justin Martyr who being a Philosopher became a Christian in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew calleth Christ King and God he wrote an Exposition of the Faith and of the Trinity in the same Essence There is one God of all saith he who is known in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit for since the Father begot the Son of his own Nature and Essence and produced the Holy Spirit from the same therefore those which are of one and the same Essence are rightly esteemed to be of one and the same Dignity And he calls Christ God before all Ages And in his Apology to the Senate he saith That Son of God who alone is properly called his Son is the Word that was with him before the World was made as the Light is with the Sun Ireneus in his third Book against the Heresie of Valentinian c. c. 6. saith Neither the Lord nor the Holy Spirit would have absolutely named him God who was not God unless he had been the true God Thus the Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy foot-stool For the Father speaks it to the Son to whom he had given the Heathen for his Inheritance and put all things under his feet thus also it is said Thy throne O God is for ever c. Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee where both he that anointeth and he that is anointed are both called God by the Holy Spirit and speaking of the Personal Union c. 20. he says The merciful God in his love to Mankind did unite God and Man together and that it behoved the Mediator of God and Man to partake of the Nature of both This Author blames those that deny the Father of the Universe to have a Son who being the Word is the first Begotten and so is God and again in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he reproves them who deny Christ to be God being the Son of the Ineffable and Singular God and therefore calls him the Lord and God as being the Son of God And p. 33. he calls him The only Begotten of the Father of the Universe the Word and Power properly begotten by him and afterward made Man by the Virgin And he tells Triphon That the Son was begotten of his Father not by way of Abscission as if the Substance of the Father was divided but as one Fire is kindled by another without any diminution of the first which remains the same still viz. the Fire kindling and that which is kindled are of the same nature still Among many other I shall mention only
that place of this Author in his second Apology where he says The Christians are not Worshippers of many impure Gods but they worship the Father Son and Holy Ghost in reason and in truth Athenagoras a Philosopher and Christian in his Apology for the Christians to Antoninus saith Least any should think me ridiculous in saying that God hath a Son as the Poets who speak of Gods which were 〈◊〉 other than Men the Word or Reason of God is of the same Form and Efficacie with the Father for of him and by him all things were made and the Father and the Son are one the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father for the Word of the Father is the Son of God united together in Power Vertue and Substance but distinguished in Subsistence and Personality Tatianus a Disciple of Justin Martyr in his Oration against the Greeks says That Christ was begotten not by any abscission but by participation or communication because that which is cut off is separated from the Original but that which is communicated doth not diminish that which doth communicate as the light of one Torch is not diminished by communicating light to another so the Word going forth from the Power of the Father did not leave the Father destitute of the Word Clement Bishop of Alexandria the Disciple of Pantenus a Martyr and Master of Origen saith That the Word was and is the Divine Principle of all things which Word hath now appeared unto Men who alone is both God and Man In his Admonition to the Gentiles speaking on Titus 2.13 of the Great God he applies it to Christ who saith He teacheth us to live well that he may as God bestow eternal Life on us hereafter And then he perswades the Gentiles Believe O Man in him that was God and Man believe him that suffered and is worshipped the living God believe in him all ye Men who alone is the God of all Men. And there he tells them That he is most manifestly the true God equal with the God of the Universe the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son And in his Pedoag l. 1. calls him The Holy God Jesus Tertullian in his Apology against the Gentiles c. 21. speaking of Christ saith We affirm'd him to be begotten of God and therefore to be the Son of God by unity of substance for both are one Spirit as when a Beam is extended from the Sun the Sun is in the Beam because it is a Beam of the Sun the substance being not seperated but extended thus he is God of God as is Light of Light for whatsoever thus proceeds from God is God Prolatum a patre non separatum dispositione alium non divisione as Grotius on John 1. quotes him In his Book against Praxeas he saith That God alone was before all things but he was alone because there was nothing without him yet was he not alone because he had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason with him And Grotius on John 1. quotes Tatianus speaking to the same sence That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Tertullian calls him God of God and Light of Light the Son not separate from the Father of one undivided Substance le cont a Proxeam c. 4. teneo unam substantium in tribus coherentibus That the whole Trinity is of one Dignity and Power In c. 17. he ascribes all the Attributes of God the Father to the Son and chap 2. against Praxeas he says The name of the Father is the Almighty God the most High the God of Israel all these agree to the Son and on Christ's words I and my Father are one he shews that they are two whom he makes equal and joyns in one Theophilus Antiochenus writing to Autolocus l. 2. says That which is begotten of God is God Which he speaks of the Word alway existing in the heart of God Ireneus l. 3. c. 6. says That neither our Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would so distinctly and absolutely have called Christ God unless he had been the true God and if at any time it gives the name to them that are not Gods it is with some addition and signification to manifest that they are not true Gods And from Christ's words to the Pharisees concerning the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham c. he concludes That Christ with his Father is the God of the Living who spake to Moses and was manifested to the Father And he applies that of the Apostle to the Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose were the Father's and of whom was Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed for ever which Scripture is so expounded by most of the Fathers He proves also the Deity of Christ he says That Christ is the measure of the Father because he comprehends him And this he appropriates to our Saviour who only comprehends the Father and he excludes the whole Creation from knowing or apprehending the Father according to his Greatness L. 2. c. 43. he says Thou O Man were created and didst not alway exist with God as doth his own Word And l. 3. c. 8. he says Nothing can be compared with the Word of God by whom all things were made Caius an ancient Presbyter of whom Photius makes mention in these words That he taught expresly of the Deity of Christ our God and of his Ineffable Generation by the Father Hyppolitus a Martyr about the Year 220 speaking of Christ says He was the infinite God and also a Man that had perfectly the perfect substance of both and that his Divinity was the same after his Incarnation as before infinite incomprehensible impassible unalterable and in brief a substantial subsistence Origen whose most mature and perfect Work being that of his Dispute with Celsus written when he was about sixty Years old confirms the same Doctrine speaking of the wise Men that presented their Gifts to our Saviour says That they offered them to him that was God and Man Gold as to a King Mirrh as to a Mortal Man and Frankinsence as to GOD. And that Christ had something that was Divine under the Humane Nature which was properly the Son of God God the Word the Power and Wisdom of God We do not separate says he the Son of God from Jesus for both the Soul and Body of Jesus were strictly united with the Word of God and of the Body of Christ he says It was the Temple of God the Word St. Cyprian another Latine Father a Bishop of Africa and an eminent Martyr writing to Quirinus against the Jews mentioneth divers Scriptures to prove Christ to be God as Isa 45. Psal 46. and proves That Christ being God and Man became Mediator between us and his Father In his Epistle to Cecilian speaking of Christ saith He is the Power Reason and Wisdom of God he descended into the Virgin and was God mixt with Man he is our God our Christ And to name no
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
I hope he will make his Notion more intelligible how a Thought which he calls the first-begotten Son of God may also be called the only begotten Son of God And how a Thought or Word mental or declared could intimately vitally and perfectly unite itself to a divinely begotten Child which whatever he says to the contrary is much more obscure than what the Scripture and the Church of England have said When he says p. 54. He can see no great reason why Socinus who contended for the Worship of Christ should also contend against his Eternity I should think he means he sees no reason for it at all and seeing he hath so much Charity for those that altogether deny our Saviour's Deity and dare not worship or invoke him at all as not to deny them the Name of Christians or hope of Salvation I beseech him to extend a more affectionate and real love and good will to all such as heartily profess to believe the one and sincerely devote themselves to the practice of the other But this seeming Reproof of Socinus for his Opinion concerning the Divinity of Christ is no more than that for which David Franken and others that agreed with Socinus to deny his eternal Deity did more severely reprimand him for viz. for worshipping him whom he affirmed to be but a Creature contrary to the Scripture To confute and silence this new Notion of the Doctor and to shew how much more intelligible and rational the Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God as professed in the Church of England is I shall inform the Reader of that demonstrative Explanation of it which the learned Dr. Pearson Bishop of Chester hath elaborated Dr. Pearson on the Creed p. 267. Printed 1659. The third assertion to be demonstrated is That the Divine Essence which Christ had as the Word before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary he had not of himself but by communication from God the Father for this can not be denied That there can be but one Essence properly Divine and so but one God of infinite Wisdom Power and Majesty that there can be but one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being because a Plurality of more Persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ who is certainly not the Father cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine Nature originally of himself and consequently being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the Eternal God he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him from the Father All things whatever the Father hath are mine saith Christ John 16.15 Because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead and more than that the Father cannot have p. 269. Being the Divine Nature as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal is also indivisible Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated to him but the whole by which he must be acknowledged co-essential of the same Substance with the Father as the Council of Nice determined and the Fathers before them taught Hence Christ says I and the Father are one Joh. 10.30 which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him and though Christ saith The Father is in me and I in him yet withal he saith I came out from the Father by the former shewing the Divinity of his Essence by the later the Origination of himself We must not look on the Divine Nature as sterile but rather acknowledge and admire the secundity and communicability of itself upon which the Creation of the World dependeth God making all things by his Word to whom he first communicated that Omnipotency which is the cause of all things The fourth assertion followeth which is That the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father is the Generation of the Son and Christ who was eternally God not of himself but from the Father is the Eternal Son of God That God alway had a Son appears by Agur's Question Who hath established all the ends of the Earth What is his Name And what is his Son's Name if thou canst tell And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour wherefore he frequently inculcates that Blasphemy in his Alchoran that God hath no such Son nor any equal with him and his Disciples have corrupted the Psalm of David Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee into Thou art my Prophet I have educated thee But by the consent of the ancient Jews and the interpretation of the blessed Apostles we know these words belong to Christ and in the most proper sense to him alone Now that the communication of the Divine Essence by the Father was the true and proper Generation by which he hath begotten the Son will thus appear because the most proper Generation which we know is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same Nature with a full representation of him from whom he is produced Thus Man begetteth a Son that is produceth another Man of the same humane Nature with himself and this production as a perfect Generation becomes the foundation of the relation of Paternity in him that produceth and of Filiation in him that is produced This is the known Confession of all Men That a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the same Nature with him The similitude in which the Propriety of Generation is preserved is that which consists in identity of Nature and this communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude from whence Christ is called The Image of God the brightness of his Glory the express Image of his Person Then he proceeds to shew That this communication of the Divine Essence is a more proper Generation than any Generation of the Creatures not only because it is in a more perfect manner but also because the identity of Nature is most perfect As in the Divine Essence we acknowledge all the Perfections of the Creature substracting all the Imperfections which adhere to them in things below so in communication we must look upon the reality without any kind of defect blemish or impurity In humane Generation the Son is begotten in the same Nature with the Father which is performed by derivation or decision of part of the Substance of the Parent but this decision includeth imperfection because it supposeth the Substance divisible and consequently corporeal whereas the Essence of God is incorporeal spiritual and indivisible and therefore his Nature is really communicated not by derivation or decision but by a total and plenary communication In natural Generation the Father necessarily precedeth the Son and begets one younger than himself for seeing Generation is for the perpetuity of the Species where the individuals successively fail it is sufficient if the
Father can produce another to live after him and continue the existence of his Nature when his Person is dissolved but this supposeth the imperfection of Mortality wholly to be removed when we speak of Him who inhabiteth Eternity the Essence which God alway had without beginning without beginning he did communicate being alway Father as alway God Animals when they come to perfection of Nature then become prolifical in God eternal Perfection shews his eternal Fecundity And that which is most remarkable in Humane Generations the Son is of the same nature with the Father and yet is not the same Man because though he have an Essence of the same kind yet he hath not the same Essence the power of Generation depending on the first prolifical benediction increase and multiply it must be made by way of Multiplication and thus every Son becomes another Man but the Divine Essence being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division and in respect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication is so communicated as not to be multiplied insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same Nature but is the same God the Father God and the Word God Abraham Man and Isaac Man but Abraham one Man Isaac another Man not so the Father one God and the Son another God but the Father and the Word both the same God Being then the propriety of Generation is founded in the essential Similitude of the Son to the Father by reason of the same Nature which he receiveth from him being the full perfect Nature of God is communicated to the Word and that more intimately and with a greater Unity and Identity than can be found in Humane Generations it follows that this communication of the Divine Nature is the proper Generation by which Christ is and is called the true and proper Son of God this was the foundation of St. Peter's Confession Thou art Christ the Son of the living God This the ground of our Saviour's distinction I go to my Father and to your Father Hence did St. John raise a Verity more than only a Negation of Falsity when he said We are in the true Son for we which are in him are true not false sons but such sons we are not as the true Son Hence did St. Paul draw an Argument of the infinite Love of God towards Man in that he spared not his own proper Son Multum distat inter dominationem conditionem inter generationem adoptionem inter substantiam gratiam ideoque non hic permixte nec passim dicitur ascendo ad patrem nostrum aut deum nostrum sed ad patrem meum patrem vestrum ad deum meum ad deum vestrum Aliter enim deus illi pater est aliter nobis illum siquidem natura coaequat misericordia humiliat nos vero natura prosternat misericordia erigit Capreolus Carthag Epist Thus saith this Incomparable Author we have sufficiently shewed that the eternal Communication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word was the proper Generation by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God which was our fourth Assertion And now I may hope that the Doctor will be as big as his word not to rise up any more against the Doctrine and Authority of the Church whereof he stiles himself a true Son and in which he acknowledgeth a Power to impose Silence though not Faith To the Readers p. 7. FINIS ERRATA PAge 20. l. ult read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. after ground of add denying p. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 16. for contra r. colta and l. 21. for nosce nosse p. 38. l. 15. for left r. best known p. 49. l. add is to the word Religion p. 56. l. 3. r. apposite and l. 20. profecit p. 57. l. 16. dele est and l. ult for which r. what p. 61. l. 16. Anomaeus i. e. p. 65. l. 11. for Eastern r. Western p. 66. l. 4. for Valence r. Valens p. 69. l. 3. r. sentiâ—e de fillo p. 70. l. 4. dele either Imperial or p. 80. l. 6. r. prosecute p. 84. l. 27. r. deterted for detected p. 87. l. 33. by commodious Interpretations p. 95. l. 13. after Doctrines add Than p. 96. l. 20. Calonius p. 106. l. penult add is before Christ. p. 119. l. 1. Prateolus p. 13â— l. 14. add by before the word Father p. 154. l. 36. r. eternal for external