〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he calls it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God and the Divine Word the Idea of Idea's and says That it is the beginning and end of the good pleasure of God that it abides with God that God had a power of Generation that the First-begotten is comprehended in the Mind only Tractat. Allegor Post sex dies and in the Treatise of the Modesty of Women the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called The Eternal Character of God and is God Now these obscure Notions which both Jews and Gentiles had of the Son of God are by St. John more plainly delivered for the Instruction of all Men and applied to the Person of our Saviour to convince us that he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this Word is God that God that was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and that they beheld his Glory the Glory of the only begotten Son of God full of Grace and Truth And the Jews in our Saviour's time concluded That Christ calling himself the Son of God made himself equal When our Saviour requires our belief of such Propositions as exceed our understanding it is a contempt and undervaluing of his Authority and Veracity to expect Demonstrations for them The Notion of a Christian is one that believes in Christ and St. August Serm. de Tempore 189 speaks of Adult Persons that were Baptized saying I am now one of the Faithful and believe what I cannot comprehend And St. Basil de S. S. c. 7. I testifie saith he to all that profess Christ and yet deny him to be God that Christ shall profit them nothing What Philosopher knows the Nature and Motions of his own Soul how it informs the Body and is Tota in toto tota in qualibet parte or by what Ligaments it is united to the Body and shall we presume not to believe the Union of the Godhead to the Manhood and other Revelations of the Gospel because our Reason cannot demonstrate how these things can be Si potes Cape si non potes Crede saith St. August Tract in John 35. The way to get a right understanding in spiritual things is to believe and practice them 'T is not we know and believe in Matters of our Salvation but we believe and are sure as the Original is Joh. 6.69 Believe that thou mayst understand saith St. Aug. on St. John Tract 29. If ye believe not that I am he saith our Saviour i. e. he that said Joh. 8.16 I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me I whom if you had known you should have known the Father also v. 19. I that came to die for your sins If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins It is well saith an ingenious Commentator that he said not Except you know that I am he ye shall die in your sins Tu rationare ego miror tu disputa ego Credam saith St. Augustine Do you reason I admire do you dispute I will believe And what was that he would believe Ipse Deus tria est unum quodque horum trium Deus est Omnia tria non Dii sed Deus est i. e. God is Three and each of these Three is God and all Three are not many but One God Tertullian was a Person of as profound Reason as any Socinian yet he submitted it to Revelation Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus Credibile quia ineptum certum est quia impossibile And Christianorum est Deum mortuum credere contra Marcion l. 2. n. 41. When in the Primitive Times Adult Persons were baptized they were question'd thus Credis in Deum Patrem the answer was Credo and so Credis in Deum filium Credis in Deum Spiritum Sanctam And hence they were called The Faithful St. Ambrose de Sacrament l. 2. c. 7. 1. The Doctor adds And if we descend to particulars in the Doctrines that are imposed as Articles of Faith the more Objections will rise in force and number By the way it is necessary to consider of what sort of Faith and Articles thereof he speaks if of an Antinomian Faith as separated from new Obedience and such Articles as are the Inventions and Impositions of Men then the Doctor acts impertinently and fights his own Shadow which he would ill resent His following Discourse will evidence what Faith he speaks of for p. 13. col 2. It is says he an acknowledged foundation in all Sciences that we must seek Truth by application of generals to particulars and it is the general scope of the Gospel to advance Natural Religion 'T is then the Faith of the Gospel which he treats of under his Notion of advancing Natural Religion and the sting of the Objection he says is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath one among Vices So that the truth of Evangelical Precepts and Revelations must be sought and approved by application of the Generals in Natural Religion The Objection which he says hath a Sting p. 13. Col. 2. is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath among Vices The Doctor well knows that the Faith we of the Church of England do profess is such a Faith as for the Objects of it is contained in the Creeds which we receive and such as for the nature of it doth work by Love and doth both purifie the heart and makes the Believer fruitful in every good Work a Faith that keeps us humble and holy not presuming to be justified by the merit of any Works of our own but through the Satisfaction made by Christ for which God will accept us and our sincere Obedience not imputing our Sins to us Moreover we acknowledge this Faith to be the Gift and the Work of God in us as Joh. 6.28 and St. Paul To you it is given not only to believe but to suffer And Phil. 1.29 By faith ye are saved and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Ephes 2.8 This is the Faith which he would make as Naked as his Gospel as if it were an effect of natural Reason as the Pelagians hold and wholly in our power without any operation of the Spirit of Christ without whom we can do nothing as to obtaining of the Grace of Faith or bringing forth the Fruits of Holiness If this be the Faith which he opposeth a belief of the Holy Trinity the Redemption of Mankind by the Eternal Son of God the Operation of the Holy Spirit in our Sanctification as it clearly appears he leaves all Christians in a State of Nature without any remedy by the Fountain of Grace of whose Fulness we have all received grace for grace In this Chapter Page 14. the Doctor mentioning that Scripture Rom. 4. ult Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification he says That though the
same particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used in both places yet the Apostle meant not to use it in the same sence in both the sence of it in the former is contrary to the later we rejoyce that our Sins are taken away by his Death but are sorry to have our Justification taken away by his Resurrection we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but we are justified by his Resurrection because thereon our Faith is built The inference which he makes is this So plain it is that the Faith which the Gospel requireth had its foundation in Natural Religion We see here how hard the Doctor strains to advance his Natural or Pelagian Religion he will not admit that the Apostle spake sence but contradictions in the same Period he speaks our sence not his own in the first part viz. that Christ died in our stead and we are justified by his Blood because thereby our Sins are blotted out but he speaks his own sence in the other part because he grounds our Justification on his Natural Religion and thereby evidently destroyeth the Evangelical Faith which we assert viz. That Christ by his Death made an Expiation or Satisfaction for our Sins In this the Doctor Yoaks himself with the Socinians for so Crellius speaking of the Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says They do not alway signify a meritorious Cause but only a final C. 1. Sect. 6. i. e. That he died for the good of Mankind as St. Paul is said to suffer for the Church and we are to lay down our lives for the brethren Col. 1.24 1 John 3.16 But can this be the sence of those plain places 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ hath suffered for our sins the just for the unjust and 2 Cor. 5.14 He gave himself a ransome for all and to taste death for every man and Luke 22.19 20. This is my bloud which was shed for you and Mat. 20.28 The son of man gave his life a ransome for many And ought we not to interpret this of Rom. 4. by the Analogy of those other places wherein the Scriptures do abound as Col. 1. Eph. 1. 1 Tim. 2. Heb. 7.27 1 Joh. 1.7 Revel 1.5 against all these Socinus urgeth that in 1 Kings 14.16 where it is said God shall deliver up Israel for the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin where he contends that the same signification of the words for the sins of Jeroboam ought to be interpreted as we do interpret that of Rom 4. which would be a kind of Blasphemy to say That Christ was delivered for our sins because not only we had sinned but had made him to sin as Jeroboam made Israel to sin Chap. 3. He applauds that Faith which is a Duty in Natural Religion It is saith he a Cardinal Vertue Justice towards God that pays him his due this was taught before Moses brought the positive Law into the World and that the Gospel builds on that foundation read Rom. 4. This speaks of the Faith of Abraham which hath been already considered Another Commendation of Natural Faith is That it is a great Promoter of Obedience wherein the Old Testament being silent as he says he sends us to Heb. 11. in the New Testament But had not those worthies any notice of the promised seed Had they no knowledge of a future state Did not they look for a heavenly country v. 16. And for a city which had foundations v. 10. Did not Abraham receive his Isaac in a type v. 19. Did not Moses see him who is invisible and had respect to the recompence of reward v. 26 27. Did not he write of Christ Did not the rest suffer in confidence of a better resurrection And did natural Faith instruct and enable them to do and suffer all these things If all these were the fruits and effects of a Natural Faith I cannot see what need there was of the Gospel if Nature shewed the way to Life and Immortality which 2 Tim. 1.10 says was brought to light by the Gospel if it taught so much Obedience Constancy and Patience how can Christ say John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by me How is it said That grace and truth came by Jesus Christ in opposition to what was revealed by Moses John 1.17 The law was weak Rom. 8.3 through the flesh and what that could not do God did by sending his own Son c. and made nothing perfect but the bringing in of a better hope Heb. 7.19 This it seems the Doctor would teach the Apostle for Gal. 3.3 This I would learn of you Received you the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith was this hearing of Faith the voice of Nature or the preaching of the Gospel It was the knowledge of Christ crucified which the Apostle so valued that he accounted all other vaine and ineffectual to Salvation P. 63. c. 1. And as our Author says What Devotion is there without Love and what Love without some knowledge of the Object And doubtless the more excellent the Object is the more will our love be increased when we consider that he who first loved us was the Eternal Son of God and that he so loved us as to die for us that we might live to and with him this will heighten our love to him above all things for what are Moses and the Prophets or the Apostles were they crucified for us have they redeemed us from the wrath of God They indeed taught us the will of God and gave us Divine as well as Moral Precepts but Christ only can write them in our hearts he only can pardon our sins having obtained Remission at the expence of his own Blood We therefore joyn with the Doctor in recommending the Duties of Natural Religion and say these ought we to do but by no means to leave the Duties of Evangelical Faith undone or disbelieved for though that hath done vertuously in many respects yet this excelleth them all In Chap. 4. he strikes again at the Foundation of Faith under the name of Credulity which he calls a Vice and the danger in this is when we pay that to a * Doth not this insinuate that Châ—â—â—t is a Creature Creature which is due to God only and mentioneth a Question of Mr. Chillingworth's to the Romanists Why implicit Faith in our Lord might not as well avail for Justification as implicit Faith in the Church By implicit Faith in the Church the Romanists mean to believe as the Church believes yet I do not believe the Papists think this implicit Faith will justify them without good Works And if by implicit Faith in Christ he means only a general belief of his Doctrines without obedience to his Commands neither is this available for Justification so that it was no such difficult Question but it might be
do in this Chapter they were such as our Saviour had exasperated against himself calling them Thieves and Robbers that came to no other end but to kill and destroy whereas he came to give them Eternal Life which St. Joh. 20. says was the end of his Writing the Gospel That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name This our Saviour proves stiling himself the good Shepherd that came to lay down his Life for his Sheep i. e. all that should hear his Voice and that they might not doubt of his power to do it he tells them v. 18. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again And this he was to do by Commission or Commandment from his Father who loved him v. 17. As being of one will with his Father in this v. 15. As the Father knoweth me even so know I my Father Again he proves his Divine Power by his Works which were such as the Jews confest the Devil himself could not do and to them he appeals v. 37. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not Now the same Divine Works in specie argues the same Divine Power and therefore our Saviour tells them I and my Father are one that is as the Jews themselves understood him One in Essence as well as in Operation the Jews on these Doctrines and Arguments of our Saviour take up Stones to stone him as guilty of Blasphemy who being but a Man made himself God for v. 36. as Christ himself saith it was because he said I am the Son of God so that it seems to be the Son of God and to be God were equivalent terms and so understood by the Jews for by either of these they concluded that he made himself equal with God To silence the Jews Accusation he urgeth a Scripture which they own'd being written in their Law Psal 82.6 Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods and the Argument is thus formed and applied à majore ad minus If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God This his being the Son of God he proves by another Argument from the Works which he did and they acknowledged that none but God could do therefore he argues thus He that doth the Works of God and such as you grant none but God can do he is God and ye ought to believe that he is in God and God in him v. 38. That is that they are of the same Nature and Essence and in this sence the Jews still understood him for they still sought to take him and stone him So that our Saviour still maintained his Doctrine That he was the Son of God in that sense which the Jews counted Blasphemy our Saviour doth not draw them off from their sense of his being the Son of God by Nature to a sense of his being so only by Unction and Sanctification i. e. to a Socinian instead of an Orthodox But as the Gentleman observes our Saviour answered them in profound Wisdom with regard to the Circumstances of Place Time and Persons all which we shall now consider and manifest our Saviour's Wisdom in respect of all these 1. As to the Persons they were resolved Enemies to the Life and Doctrine of our Saviour and such as would not believe him though he told them never so plainly as our Saviour says when they ask'd him the like ensnaring Question v. 25. If you be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus answered them I told you and ye believe me not because you are not of my sheep Their present Honour and Interest was a barr to their belief How can ye believe that seek the honour that cometh of men and not that which cometh of God They understood not that plainer Parable in v. 6. of the true and false Shepherds And our Saviour tells his Disciples Luke 8. v. 10. To you it is given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God but to others in parables that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand These were those obstinate Jews in whom was fulfilled the Prophecy of Isai 6.9 as St. Matthew relates ch 13.13 for this cause probably our Saviour in his Wisdom thought it not fit to cast Pearls before Swine he knew they would not believe though he had asserted his Deity never so expresly 2ly As to the time it was the Wisdom of our Saviour not to expose himself to the Rage of the Jews the Time designed for his Death and the Manner of it viz. by Crucifixion not by Stoning being not yet come and he had many Doctrines to instruct his Disciples more perfectly in them some they could not yet bear and some they knew but imperfectly even that of the Resurrection and these things required his Presence with them for a longer time and therefore he withdrew himself from them Unless this Gentleman will make himself wiser than his Maker he must acknowledge that when our Saviour answered those Jews so as to silence their Accusation of Blasphemy and stop their Rage who sought to stone him though he did not by that Argument which he used assert his Deity which yet he still maintained that he used his profound Wisdom in the Argument which he urged But what if from this Scripture from which this Gentleman would prove that Christ is called the Son of God by vertue of his Mission only it shall appear that he is the Son of God by Nature and Essence may we not then retort that he only casts a Mist on the eyes of the Simple and hath a Spirit of Contradiction if it shall appear that the first Question was Whether our Saviour was the Christ as it is clear v. 24. i. e. the Messiah If 2dly It appears that the Messiah was the Natural Son of God then this Scripture from whence he makes the Objection will be an utter Confutation of it Now this was the sence which the Jews had viz. that Christ or the Messiah was the Son of God and they accused him of Blasphemy because he whom they thought to be but a meer Man made himself the Messias that is God for they would by no means grant him to be the Messiah That the Messiah was to be the Son of God R. Sclemo proves from the second Psalm of which he says our Fathers expounded this Psalm concerning the Messiah of whom it is said Kiss the Son lest he be angry and thou art my Son which explains what is meant by the word Son viz. that it could not agree with any other Interpretation as that of Be ye instructed or worship purely for the Psalmist expounds himself for it being said v. 7. Thou art my Son viz. he whom the Gentiles conspired against it follows according
of both which Nature 〈…〉 t was qualified for that Great End and Office of a Mediator and â—oth the Sanctification and Mission of our Saviour were but a Manifestation of his being qualified both as God and Man for that great End of our Redemption If our Saviour's Sanctification and Mission into the World were a sufficient reason to convince the Jews that he was not a Blasphemer in saying that he was the Son of God why may it not be a sufficient Argument to prove that the Socinians blaspheme Christ who say he was not the Son of God until his Conception and Ascention into Heaven Might not the Jews argue then as the Socinians now do Why tell you us of your Sanctification and Mission as if that made you the Son of God if we could see you ascend into the Heavens we might believe that you came down from Heaven but till then we must believe our eyes rather than your words we see you are a Man and know your Mother and Brethren and therefore you blaspheme in saying I am the Son of God The truth is that Christ's Sanctification or Unction his Mission c. were but as St. Paul speaks of his Resurrection a Declaration only of what he was before Again the Question was not in what respect he was the Son of God but whether he was the Son of God in any such manner as might excuse him by their Law from being a Blasphemer and herein also he shews his Divine Wisdom he argues from his Works and from their Law which they knew to convince them of what they were ignorant of if he should have proved that he was the Son of God because God was his Father by eternal Generation that had been to prove ignotum per ignotius and the Jews would have equally rejected both and adjudged him guilty of Blasphemy in the highest degree as not believing that God had a Son begotten of him from Eternity or that Christ was this Son but they having heard of a Messias whom they expected about that time to come into the World the best means to convince them that he who did the Works of God which no Man could do except God were with him was that Messias and if that he was first sanctified and then sent into the World in a more eminent manner and for higher End than any of those to whom the Word of God came in former times to commissionate them as Magistrates for the Government of Mankind then he did not blaspheme in saying I am the Christ or I am the Son of God So that if our Saviour's Argument were more opposite and convincing than those of the Socinians we have gained this Fortress from them and on their surrender of this their other little Sconces will fall into our hands for whatever is spoken of our Saviour as God or the Son of God they refer to his Designation and Mission into the World i. e. to his Humane Nature as where it is said He received power from the Father that he did the works of his Father that he was one with the Father by consent of his will And they will allow no such Phrases any way to imply his Deity because those expressions of Gods giving and Christ's receiving God's sending and his being sent imply a Superiority and Inferiority in the Persons and that the one received somewhat which he had not before But the Fathers and late Divines do easily answer all these thus To the Objection of Receiving 't is said what Christ received of his Father was not given as he was God but Man St. Ambrose de Fide l. 3. n. 22. Christ prayeth as the Son of Man and obtains as the Son of God he possesseth as the Son of God what he prays for as the Son of Man so he was anointed and grew in Grace c. not as God but Man Perfecit non Deus sed caro So the Father is greater than I and the Father giveth life to the Son and he received the Spirit without measure All such Phrases belonging to Christ as Man as Christ says of himself All things are delivered to me of the Father as he was then incarnate The next most considerable Objection is from 1 Cor. 15.24 c. How Christ can be said to be that true God it being there said he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father and then the Son himself shall be subject to him Answ This doth not imply an Annulling or Abdication of his own Dominion as God no more than when God the Father is said to deliver all things to the Son and Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth the Father did exclude himself by that Gift 2ly This Kingdom is peculiarly his Church and St. Aug. de Trinitate l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. thus explains that place Tradere regnum est credentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei To present his Church pure and without spot free from all impurity of Flesh and Spirit from all Sins and all Enemies which shall be trodden under their feet as Seneca's Phrase is Reddam te tibi meliorem that whereas God was obeyed by them formerly but in part now God shall be all in all And when it is said Christ shall reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet it doth not imply that he shall reign no longer but that he shall reign so long maugre all the Powers and Polity of the Gates of Hell which shall not prevail against him for the word until doth not exclude the future time as Matth. 28.28 But how shall the Son himself then be subject shall he become a subject of whose kingdom it was promised there should be no end and that he should reign forever Luke 1.33 Object Christ while on Earth and now in Heaven is subject to his Father What other Subjection can be conceived Then when he shall deliver up the Kingdom Answ This by the Ancients was understood of the mystical Body of Christ over which he is Head and King and when the whole Church is subject then Christ as the Head may be said to be subject so Athan. Contr. Apolon n. 22. and St. Ambrose de Fide l. 5. c. 6. n. 24. Christ shall be subject in us who are not yet fully made subject And St. Aug. Q. 93. 69. n. 87. it is spoken of Christ and his Members Christus universus est caput cum Membris This Subjection is spoken in the future Tense Then shall the Son be subject Now Gregory Nazian asks the question Annon nunc est subjectus est Orat. 36. Christ as Man never disobeyed or rebelled but we that are Members of his Mistical Body do sin and disobey God and Christ and till our mortal Body shall put on Immortality we shall not be wholly brought into subjection but when Christ shall have brought down all Authority and Power subdued all his Enemies purified all his Members and presents them to his Father